particularly, after his death, i have, in a way, become the keeper of the flame, a little bit to my surprise, but there it is. >> uh-huh. do you feel history is now coming to meet him? do you think his role and his accomplishments, and the sing lar place that he occupies is becoming better known now? >> that may be for a couple republicans. one is that he was truly a poly mass, and that's sort of a pun because what i mean by that is he made his mark in a wide variety of fields in both pure and applied mathematic, and a lot of people wonner, given the way the feel has multiplied that if ever again anybody could that -- could do that in as many areas as he did.
the other thing is that with quite a delay, game theory is now a major tool in the social sciences, even though that seminal book was called the theories of economic behavior, it was not taken up for at least 20 years by economics and other social sciences. it was taken up mainly by the military and rand corporation which did analysis for the military, but it came quite late to economics and now to come extent also to political science, and interestingly enough to biology, and because that happened with a delay, but it did happen again, more people are aware of him than would be otherwise. i think the computer scientists always were, but that doesn't mean the economists, the political scientists, and
molecular biologists which many are now. >> well, that's a perfect way to transition to your career because i want to spend the balance of the time op that because it is so fascinating. you mentioned going to columbia, studying with the nobel laureate, received a ph.d., went to pitt, were on the faculty there at pitt, but i want to pick up the story, really, with you going to the white house to be on the staff of the council for the economic advisers. let me point out today as we sit here in 2013, nobody talks about the coup sill of economic advisers that much anymore, but during the 70s, the cea was a big deal because of the things that president nixonmented to try to do. >> it was. can i backtrack a minute? >> absolutely. >> i have an antedote why it is i got a ph.d. at columbia. bob was teaching at princeton,
and i had a job at the educational testing service when i decided i wanted to go to graduate school, and a friend of mine, famous for having written wall street and i decided to go get ph.d.es at princeton. we were welcomed both enthusiastically, but there was a problem. women were not accepted at princeton, even in graduate school so i would have to talk to the president. the president was -- had been president for 20 years and was about to retire, and that conversation did not go well. [laughter] he first responded by saying, oh, i'm so sorry, we can't accept a student of your caliber, but we don't have a need for women students. i said, well, president dodd, that's not a problem because my
husband is an instructor at princeton, and we live in the leftover world war ii barracks they housed a junior faculty in. those barracks which were supposed to be torn down after the war are actually going to be torn down next year. [laughter] at least that's what they say. [laughter] after i made the point, there was a long silence. he said, oh, mrs. whitman, we wish we could accept you in the ph.d. program, but, unfortunately, we simply don't have enough facilities for women students, so for the lack of ladies' rooms, i had to commute to columbia to get my ph.d., which i did. okay. now -- >> ironically not being able to get into princeton to study economics. >> there you are, exactly, exactly. >> right. >> back to the nixon white house
-- >> yes. >> the importance of the cia tended to rise and fall with the kind of personal relationship that the chairman had with the president, and at that time, there were a string of cea chairman starting with, i guess, author and walter heller, with john kennedy and johnson and then mccracken and also george schulz with nixon, and nixon, two -- there were two big events that cast economics into the forefront, and one was when the united states was having all kinds of problems with the breton woods agreement which worked just fine. the theory was the world would operate on a dollar standard and
the dollar operates on more or less a gold standard so if you wanted to trade gold for dollars worked if anybody asked. the system worked great as long as nobody asked, but in 1972, the united states' trade deficit was getting bigger and bigger, and the french were adding to demand gold. one fine day, nixon aggregated, socially, a commitment into the brenton wood system. it happened to be the day i was leaving the council to go back to the university of pittsburgh because i decided i could no longer ignore the president was mixed up in the watergate scandal, and the chairman's assistant called me up and said, be sure to listen to the radio
tonight because the president is really going to drop a bomb. i hung up and turnedded around and said to my family, the president's going to drop a bomb tonight. my daughter was 8 years old, her hair stood up on end, hid under the table, and said, he's going to drop a bomb here? anyway, he did. he aggregated the brenton wood system. he put into effect the infa mouse wage price control program, and so there were two big economic issues on the table. one was the wage price controls, and because i briefly served on the price commission, i was kind of the public face of the wage price controls when i went to the council, and the second thing was that the united states tried very hard to develop a new blueprint for the international
monetary system because the system was gone. that was my field, an international economist, and i found myself serving on a group headed by paul volker trying to redesign the international monetary system, and we had an absolutely beautiful blueprint. it never got used because national politics and not just ours, but europeans -- >> sure. >> the two things that i was heavily involved in were kind of front and center in those days. also, since then, the white house, as so typical of many institutions, have kind of proliferated. now there's not only the coup sill of economic advisers, but the national economic council and the frsh -- treasury's deeply involve. there's a ma stat tis of
organizations around the president dealing with economic and the intersection between economic and political issues. >> how would you describe the environment you experienced in the nixon white house? >> well, aside from the little problem of watergate, which garagely i would -- gradually, i could no longer ignore, it was very exciting. the odd thing that people forget about richard nixon is that almost every piece of progressive economic legislation that we have was passed -- either passed or tried to be passed and didn't during the nixon administration. i mean, the epa, the eeoc, the -- you name these alphabet agencies, and, in fact, he and daniel tried to put in a negative income tax, and they couldn't get it through congress, but they tried, and i remember a few days -- few years
ago, bob dole made a tv series for public television in which he comments there's stlowtly no way richard nixon could get the republican nomination today because he was far too progressive. in fact, in many ways, his economics was to the left of barack obama's. of course, he opened up china, made the first -- was it salt treaty with the russians, so it was a very exciting time to be there, and it was with great regret that i left, but as i say, it increasingly dawned on me he could not have been unaware of what was going on. >> well, you make that point in the book that you felt just as a matter of principle after watergate and all the
revelations afterwards you couldn't stay. >> that's right. i tried to tell this to herb stein who was then chairman of the council, a good friend, a man of personal integrity, but a huge loyalist of the president, and i tried to tell stein i was going to leave, and he simply didn't believe me. finally, i wrote a letter of resignation to the president and sent it and left a copy on stein's desk, and then he believed me, and he really did regard it as a personal betrayal. >> did he tell you that personally? >> yeah, pretty much, uh-huh. it was clear. let's put it that way. >> okay. you entitled that chapter in your book "the end of innocence," and why was that like that for you? >> well, because, as i say, i had always, you know, sort of
taken these institutions like the presidency, at face value, and i had tried for as long as i could to evade recognizing the fact that there was a very dark side to the presidency, which, as i say, had a lot of very exciting and progressive things going on, and it's in that sense that i meant the end of innocence, and, you know, ever since then, i've tended to look at institutions, whatever institutions they are, a little more critically than i would have before. >> you mentioned from there to years of incredible board service. some of the biggest companies in america, and it's interesting.
you just made the observation of being critical of big institutions after you leave the white house. manny happenny -- hanny, westinghouse, pnd, the university board, a time of fundamental social change for women in the 7 os, and before we get into your observations about the boards and the companies, which you're very candid about throughout the book, can you just talk about what it was like being a woman sought for these board seats element always. any cases, in fact, you were not the first woman to take the board seats? >> no. on the boards i sat on, i'm just running through them in my mind, i think i was always the first woman. >> yeah. >> in fact, when lynn martin, who had been secretary of labor, joined the proctor and gamble board, she said, i don't
remember this, but says, you know, you greeted me when i first came saying, lynn, i'm so glad to meet you, i waited 17 years for you because i always wanted to be one of two or more women on a board of directors. the reason that i was courted by boards, i think, is because in the 70s, companies, big companies in particular, were beginning to feel the pressure to put women on the boards, and there were not a lot of women with the kind of experience and background that i mean, now nows there's plenty of women ceos and high ups in companies, but there was not then. i had a high profile visibility at the cea, suddenly, companies wanted me, and i was courted by a lot of companies, and i got to pick the cream of the crop. manufacturers hanover, by the way, had three or four changes
of name into what is now jpmorgan chase, and i was on the board through all those changes. and -- >> what were your observations about board service in general, the way corporations were governed during this period? >> well, one of the things that really startled me is that when the first board i joined was manufacturers hanover bank, and i hadn't the dimmish notion what distinguished a profitable bank from an unsuccessful, unprofitable bank. when i joined the board, i said, look, i want to have a short course in money centered banking, and i said before each board meeting, i would like to meet with the head of one of your major business units or one of your major staff units to learn a little bit about this, and they were very accommodating, and they set it
up for me, but they agented as if he was the first person who ever asked, and i wondered how other people learned, and it turned out, you had a listen for years until it sank in and then start contributing. of course, there was no way i was going to keep quiet for a year or two while i learned about banking. now, of course, there's a whole cottage industry in educating corporate directors and lots of both schools and law schools regard this as a wonderful cash cow to give short courses of various kinds for corporate directors, but it was up heard of in those days, and that was really -- people say, well, what was it like to be the first woman on a board, and how did they treat you? yes, there were some initial looks of shock, and i still
remember the little round southern gentleman who came up to about my shoulder who was head of rentals tobacco, and we were talking, a conversation going on, and he said something, he said, "damn," looked up at me, and said, oh, pardon me, ma'am. i said, you know, if you heard what i heard on the college campuses of the 1960s, you would not be so apologetic for that damn, but by and large, they treat the me with respect -- treated me with respect and eventually, actually began to take what i said seriously. i didn't feel a lot of difficulty, but it was a wee bit lonely. >> did you feel in a unique
position? did you feel you could relate to the other directors or not so much? >> i did. i did. i remember telling the chairman of manny hanny when he asked me to join the board, i said, look, i recognize i'm a token, but, please, don't expect me to behave like a token because i won't, and, indeed, i didn't. >> and they took you on? >> and they took me on, yeah, yeah. >> this was a time of the political, social upheaval, regulatory change you're talking about. what did you observe about the nature of corporate leadership in the 70s in that kind of environment? >> well, what has happened, and it didn't all happen in the 70s, a process that's still going on today, and that is corporate boards began to take their oversight functions more seriously. they -- yes, they became a bit
more diverse. there were women, minorities, and so forth beginning to join boards, but mainly, the heat was on them, and it started in the 7 os when they grew up what sometimes is called a market for corporate control where companies were merged or there were hospital takeovers or whatever, and the notion of governance became more serious. this was not just the chairman's cronyies voting yes, although, boards vote, usually, tend to be unanimous, but that's because you don't hold a vote until you know that you're going to get the support of the board. the haggling, if there is any, goes on before, and when ross
perot voted no on the general motors board, this was huge, headline sterile, and, of course, now from reading the newspapers, questioning the role of corporate boards, what they are responsible for, and the whole question of imektive -- executive pay and what role the board should play, all of this now is much more front and center than it was, and so i was there for a fair part of this revolution in corporate governance. it was not revolution. it was more evolution, and, of course, starting in, well, actually, it started in the early 1990s, and it started when robert, the chairman of general motors, was pushed out by the board, and then there was just a rash of ceos being pushed out by
noncompetence on part of the director which is something i think never really happened before, and it was a departure by coincidence happened within six weeks of when i left general motors. i was tired of being cassandra telling gm that unless you wake up and smell the berning pot, you know, you're going to be in serious trouble, and i couldn't get top management to take heads out of the sand long enough to see the world was changing, and they would have to change, but he was forced out by the board, and them the head of american experience, and a whole host of companies, the same thing happened, really unheard of at
the time, and the process is still going on now of playing out to corporate directors that they have a major responsibility. >> talk about your career at general motors, about a decade and a half, a lot of that is vice president chief economist. what took you to gm, why, and what did you find when you got there? >> well, it actually happened here. i was on a year's sabbatical at the center for advanced study in the behavioral sciences on stanford campus. actually, now it's part of stanford. it was not then. paul mccracken, chairman of the cea whenfuls there on staff said there's a man from gm called roger smith who wants to come and talk to you. his daughter at stanford business school, he'll be there anyway. i said, fine, ask him to lunch
at the center. the center had wonderful lunches, and i suppose i was one of a few people on the planet who department know he would be the next chairman and ceo of general motors, so he came and we chatted, and then he said, how would you like to be vice ve president and chief economist of general motors? i thought, my god, he was blond, fair skin, looking rutty, and i thought, he had too much sun. i mean, what an instain idea. [laughter] but turned out he was serious, and i was, you know, had been teaching for quite a number of years, up for a new challenge, turned down several college presidencies, and it appeared, as my children said, mom, that's not what you really want to do, and i think what intrigued me, well, two things, one, the company at that time was big
enough to really affect the national economy, and i was a macro international economist, and the other thing was, here, i had this whole economic training, and i think of training in a field of creating a filing cabinet, break down problems, and reassemble them, and i had this mental filing cabinet and the vocabulary that went with it, and i was presented it always to a captive audience of students, and i thought, gee, it would be interesting to see if this can be effective and persuasive with a noncaptive audience who don't share my vocabulary or my mental filing cabinet or whatever, so i became intrigued. now, actually, this was in january, and i didn't say yes until may or april because it would clearly mean commuting
marriage. bob was teaching at pitt, and as long as i had a child at home, i was not going to do that. our son was at yale, but our daughter was in high school, and she, for a set of reasons of her own, wanted to go to boarding school. she did not want to go back to school she'd been in in pbsz, which we were intending to go back to, so i thought, well, if she gets into the boarding school she wants to go to, which was andover, i'll accept the gm job, so she did, and i did. that's how it started. >> what did you hope to do as a chief economist? how did that align with what gmmented you to do? >> well, the chief economist before manufacture who retired, which was why the job was available, had really mainly been kind of a -- an assistant to the chairman who wrote
speeches for him and so -- or at least set out the content of the speeches, and i really wanted to make these, and i wanted the staff to be more useful to the operating side of the house, so i did a number of thing, but one thing, i shifted the app -- analytical frame work of the staff from just focusing, collusively on the u.s. economy to focusing on the global economy. i'm sure that bias came partly from my own background as an international economist, but, also, i was convinced this was the coming of a global industry, and so i reoriented that staff in that direction. >> because it's 1978 when you joined -- >> right. >> the japanese invasion happened. >> exactly. >> this huge transition started. >> correct. >> the pot was on fire.
>> the pot was on fire. >> as you eluded to earlier. >> and the management said it was a temporary phenomena that would all go away, and then when the japanese started to build plants here, they said, well, my boss who was the vice chairman, said, well, wait until they have to work with american labor, we'll push them back into the sea. >> push them back into the sea, that's right, that's a title of the chapter. >> right. >> you talked about the real lack of urgency. >> that's right. >> at gm, and spooming to the competitive pressures. what was your observation about why that was happening? >> well, gm was so used to being the big cay -- kahoona, and when i went to work for gm, i got congratulated for working were generous motors, which was their nickname. it was not bad half the time. they had more than half the u.s.
market share, and they simply couldn't adjust to the fact that thftion changing and changing rapidly. now, roger smith did see -- he, in some ways, had some vision of the future, but it was a vision, and what he tried to do to fix it was not successful and was not cape capable of making mid course corrections. he tried to do a lot of automation without recognizing that was not the japanese secret. he bought shoes hoping to -- that these high-tech companies would crack the gm culture, but he treated them like financial transactions. he never really saw that the functionally integrate them into
general motors was a very different kind of job, and they never were functionally integrated into general motors. he brought in a lot of people from the outside at vice president levels, which was never done before hoping that would update the culture, but every one of those people he brought in, johnson, deputy director of oak ridge laboratories, he brought in bob frost, who had been head of nasa. he brought in elmer johnson, all kinds of very high level people, and every one of us, male or female, either retiredded or left the company frustrated because we could not crack that culture. don't misunderstand me. there were insiders who were trying to do the same thing, but
there were not enough of them to form a critical mass. >> uh-huh. >> and i remember -- i finally got so frustrated i left and said privately, not publicly, obviously, you know, gm and the uaw will join hands and jump off the cliff together, and, of course, that happened in a rather spectacular fashion. >> uh-huh, and then we all became shareholders. >> yeah, that's right. [laughter] >> let's -- we have a lot of great questions from the audience. let me ask a few of those before we talk about what ewe have been doing since leaving gm in michigan in other places. you know, you talk -- i want to begin with this question because i love it so much. you talk about what it was like to ride in the car with your dad who was not a good driver. what was a sunday drive like with your father? >> well, my father was a notoriously terrible driver. he and my mother got driver's
licenses by going down to trenton and taking the driver's test and footing a $5 in a cigarette case and offered a cigarette to the cop, -- [laughter] and they both got driver's licenses, but that doesn't mean they learned to drive. i still remember, it was not just the sunday afternoon, but i did once drive across the country with my father from princeton to santa barbara where he left my stepmother and me while he went off to see me for an atom bomb test, and i loved it because i had a chance to have, you know, unbroken time with my father, but even though i was only 11, as in that picture, i had enough sense to be frightened for my life. [laughter] that we would get there, and we
did, but somebody asked my father why he drove a cadillac? it was an unacademic thing to do. he said, well, only because nobody will sell me a tank. [laughter] i guess a cadillac was the closest he could come to a tank, and it is true that he managedded to crumple a lot of cadillacs and survive. although, on the honeymoon, he crash the car, and the windshield wiper went through my mother's nose, and she said that created a lifetime problem. in a way it did. in those days in order to prevent scarring, they gave far more radiation than anybody would do now, and so late in her life, she was plagued with nonlife threatening, but very annoying skin cancers which came from the radiation. >> wow, amazing. >> from the fract that he crashed the car into a tree, which he did with some
regularity. >> that's amazing. there's a card here, an old friend worked with your father and always referred to him as johnny. did anyone call him johnny? >> everybody did. >> yeah. >> yeah. i mean, in hungarian, it's yonchi, in the united states, it's johnny, and i don't know that i ever called -- i think people called him johnny or professor. i don't know that anybody ever called him john. >> huh. >> other than his brother, nicholas, who wrote -- it's not quite a book, but wrote about his brother. he was a very formal man, and he called him john, but i don't know of anything else that did. >> here's a more substantive question. do you know what most radical vision of the future of computerring was at ias around the time of your father, and did it come close? >> well, i don't know so much --
i know what my father, his radical vision. at some point, i guess it was right after world war ii, he wrote a letter to freeman dicen, george dicon's father and a long time faculty member, and he said i'm not thinking about something much more important than bombs. i'm thinking about computers because he was -- his main goal, scientific goal for the very high powered computer machines was in long range weather forecasting and weather control and felt in any future international conflict, it would be weather control and not bombs that would carry the day, and there is an institution, and i forgotten now what the initials
are, in boulder, colorado, that uses high powered computing to work on weather forecasting, and, of course, what happened is that computers have made possible much better short term weather forecasting than there was before, but as i understand it, for long range weather forecasting, it's still the farmer's almanac, and i guess the reason for that is something which hadn't surfaced at -- when my father was alive which was chaos theory saying, essentially, no, you can't forecast what the weather is going to be like, and so in that sense, he was would be disappointed. he always assumed that computers would be used only for scientific research and probably a dozen of them in the world would -- maybe 20. the notion that, you know, every
single one of us would have a whole line up of these electronic objects, some of them so small that you could hang around your neck like a pendent flash drive and that they would be used for children to play games on and people to write love letters on, including love letters to people they shouldn't be writing love letters too -- [laughter] that would have absolutely blown his mind. i just don't think, and, of course, miniaturization had not come in yet. they were still using vacuum tubes and the things were as big as a room. he also was very concerned that mankind would wipe itself out before 1980 because we really didn't have the social control to manage these tech listening call marvels like hydrogen bombs and so forth, so he might be
quite pleasantly surprised we are sitting here talking about all this in 2013. >> did you hear hungarian spoken at ias, at home? was it -- >> i don't think they spoke hungarian at ias, and most who worked on the computers with my father were americans. he and my stepmother did often speak hungarian to each other. my mother, of course, remarried app american so i never heard hungarian in her house. well, she would sometimes briefly speak hungary yap to her parents, but, basically, there was no hungarian in that household. my father and stepmother spoke hungarian, particularly, if they wanted to talk about something they didn't want to talk about in front of me, which meant that as a teenager, i understood a certain amount of it. [laughter] it's all gone away. i'm told that i -- i spent a year in hungry when i was very
small, i think about two and a half to three and a half when my mother was getting divorced and remarried, and i'm told that i spoke perfect jeer mapp to the family and perfect hungarian to the servants, but i came back here, went to an american nursery school, and within weeks, i had suppressed both languages, and i really don't like -- so many americans don't speak anything other than pigeon french today. >> one final audience question about your view as an economist, and then i got a couple final questions before we do a reading. do you fall in the austerity camp on stimulus camp? [laughter] >> oh, like most economists, both. [laughter] what i mean by that is that we needed this stimulus. it probably should have been bigger and lasted longer than it
did. at the same time, we need a specific and credible program for gradually reducing the budget deficit, which, to my mind, means both increasing taxes, and you can do it by closing loopholes without changing tax rates or, i guess my vote is a carbon tax, but i'm not going to sell that any time soon, and, also, by getting some kind of handle on the growth of entitlements, which, you know, before too long will swallow up more and more of the federal budget. as i say, i'm not just being facetious when i say "both," and instead, we've done just the opposite. we've imposed austerity in the form of the sequester which was carefully designed to be so awful it could never happen. well, guess what, folks, and
we've made no progress at all on any kind of long term reduction in the budget deficit, so we have exactly 180 degrees back ward. >> when you look at the situation in washington now, how do you feel? are you optimistic? do you think we've got the where with all or will? >> at the moment? no, we have a mess. i'm reminded of winston churchill's statement about democracy is the worst possible system other than all the others that have been tried, and right now, you know, democracy is at a low point, at least american democracy because we seemed to have worked ourselves into an absolute stand stim. now, i'm optimistic in the sense that i presume sooner or later we'll get over it, but right now it's a grim prospect. >> the time chapter in your book
you call "having it all," and you really do write in your on the mis[talking over each other] and -- on the mystic and upbeat terms of having done that throughout your life. if you were to give advice to a young woman today starting out on a career path, sort of like yours, imagine that, and she wanted to take some cues from that. what would you say? >> well, you can't possibly forecast how your life is going to turn out. they say, you know, men make life plans, women don't. well, i'm not even sure that have many men make life plans, but, certainly, nowadays, the notion, you know, ever getting on one path and sticking to it is less and less in vogue. if you ask young people, do they department to, you know, work for one company or even in the same field all of their life, the majority of them will say no.
i spoke professionally, the old boy scout motto, be prepared for what comes. on the personal side, what they say -- you know, and i talk a lout in the book as you mentioned about what invaluable support my husband has given to me throughout my career and how it would not have. possible without that, and they say, well, what sort of partner should we choose? i said, look, i can't tell you. you know, i can't define for you what your ideal partner would look like, but i can give you one piece of advice, and that is never form a long term partnership with someone because you think you can change him or her because you won't. [laughter] those are two pieces of advice. >> okay. good. we're going to have a reading now. you generously agreed to read a pass camming. do you know the one you want to read?
>> i think i do. >> okay, good. >> yes, there it is. okay. this is the very end of my book, and i said through all the changes in my life and in the world that vowppedz it, by father's presence has never been far away. today, i'm a trustee for the advanced study in princeton, he was a first member in 1933. as they did in his day, leading scholars from all over the world make up a small permanent faculty, free of all teaching duties to focus on research, writing, and mentoring the large number of younger members who spend anywhere from one term to several years there. the institute's board is probably the most intellectually exclusive collection of trustees in the world. some of its members are billionaires and, by the way, eric schmidt are two of them. they have ability to oversee and
nurture the institute as a place where some of the world's greatest minds can operate in a serene, comfortable environment, up hindered by distractions. the tie that binds is in my mind whenever i sit with fellow trustees in the glad walled board room overlooking a picture popped and woods beyond around which several generations of geniuses strolled. i find myself conjuring up my father's astonished ghost, seeing his daughter sitting in the governing body of the institution he helped to found, the place where he spent most of his adult life and built his own prototype of the mote -- modern computer. while i common the ghost, my husband is tending his grave in the princeton cemetery, weeding, raking, and occasionally replacing a dead plant with a new one, a task he performs
faithfully twice a year. the son-in-law would fatally cramp his daughter's future is doing his part to make sure the father's memory is not neglected. my father's presence was closest in 2003 when hungary had a national commemoration of the 1 # 00th anniversary of his birth. i was an honored guest, an hon nor that carried the most hectic schedule i ever encountered. after finishing treatment for breast cancer, i not only gave talks about my father in internationally attended meetings of the mathematical and computer science societies in budapest, but gave informal talks about him in english to students in schools all over hungary. thank goodness it's a small country. we were transport the to every corner of it in the crampedded
elderly vehicle appointed to a promoter who agented as our chauffeur. some of the schools were actually named after johnson, but in all of them, students knew who he was and what he accomplish the and created exhibitions to honor him. i tried to imagine american high school students courting a mathematician for sports and entertainment celebrities. that week of talking about johnson's life and accomplishments in the land of his birth brought closure to me, a recognition for what i fear were conflicting expectations, my father's, my mother's societies, and my own, that had shaped my life, had finally converged. i had fulfilled my father's moral imperative that i make full use of whatever intellectual gifts i had. my mother's ugly duckling developed a swan poise and
self-confidence. a society where women had fortune 500 corporations, where half the universities and several leading public ones as well are headed by women, and where a female has been a contender for the nation's highest office now allows the most daring and talented women expectations that far ceo seed mine. by their open lives, my husband and our children have begin the lives of the fear of bob's mother that all three would pay dearly for my career ambitions. the expectations of a close and loving family life extended to encompass a third generation. my father's shadow lifted a glass. if we meet again, it will be in sunlight. >> marina, thank you so much. [applause]
>> i'm the washington editor of national review. i have a lot of books i want to read this summer, but as a political journalist, i'm looking ahead to the 2016 presidential race, looking at candidates who will probably run, especially on the republican side, and one of the people i look at is chris christie, so i picked up "the inside story to the rise of power," it's a fun read so far, and it really takes you back
into chris christie's political sense in new jersey. before he was u.s. attorney, he was a morris county freeholder, involved in county politics, and so it takes us behind the story, behind the politician we've seen on the magazine covers with president obama in new jersey, and it really asks, who is chris christie, told by people who know new jersey politics. it's a fun read. i recommend it. chrischris christie is a likely contender. know where he came from and what the politics mean ahead of the election. second book on the list is by a colleague, kevin d. williamson wrote a book called "the end is near: how going broke leaves america richer, happier, and more secure." the book is fun because the fiscal cliff was a big story covered, but later this year, you're going to have the debt limit be the story that consumes congress, and ted williamson looks at the debt from a political perspective, historical perspective, talking
about the consequences of the debt, how it's really taking up a lot of congress' time, how it could potentially ruin the country or make the country go broke, and he does it with wit and fun, and it's a great book by kevin williamson. third is "this town," and as a journalist in washington, there's always gossip and talk about what's really happening behind the scene, how stories are written, who leaks to, who, the power struggles, and mark, who really has the ear of the beltway crowd comes out with a book in july, "this town" about the inside scene in washington in dupont circle, the famous salons, and that book gives a story and color of what washington in the political media establishment's all about. for fun, a book i'm looking forward to reading is call "mice and willie," the parallel lives of baseball's golden age, a favorite sports writer. i was down in spring trainer in
arizona watch my indians and cubs play baseball. this book looks at two men who came of age at the same time, became stars at the same time, and formed a lifelong friendship, something i never knew. it's a great book. i think it's going to be a big book for baseball fans this summer. that's my list. looking forward to reading them all. >> let us know what you read this summer, tweet us @booktv, post on facebook, or e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
>> host: well you spent time in the book on israel, iraq, and islam, and one of the isms you talk about is islamism. the real reason the islamists declared war on the west, that is embodies the freedom of the individual and the negation of thee karattic authority. in a globalized world, this is a con they onthat threatens islam everywhere. >> guest: yes. this is preoccupied me for
several years and preoccupies all of us more and more, and i do think, as i said, there's a problem here with the islamic world, and with the religion at the root of the islamic world, and it's very, very important to understand, i think, in all of this, that when one talks about the concerns, one is not talking about all muslim, on the contrary. there are, i mean, just to the point of view of britain, there's have many muslims who are immigrants to britain, precisely because they wanted to sign up to britain, western values,mented to live in freedom, to prosper and have good jobs and live in freedom because freedom's very important to them. the women wanted to be treated as equals. they wanted all the things that we all want, freedom, peace, security, prosperity. you know, they are not hung up on these religious precepts that
are causing us in the western world so much trouble. the problem is in the islamic world, those precements have. interpreted in a way in which comes out of the religion, and which is now dominant, and that is to say that the view of the world, which says that the world has to be remade according to islamic precepts, that there is, you know, that muslims, where muslims are enjoying western-type freedom, that must be pulled back, made to cop csh conform to a very, very narrow interpretation of islam, that view is now dominant, and the view that the west must be brought to heal for this vision, this interpretation of the islam is also dominant, and that's what i call islamism. people say, well, what is this word, "islamism"?
it's nonceps. i understand what they mean. islamism is a made up word, but i use it for a particular reason because it is in order to allow for the fact there are muslims who are not extreme, who do want to sign up to western values, and we must acknowledge that, and there are muslims who don't so those who don't i call and others call islamists because they are trying to impose islamic doctrines, values on people who are not muslim, and they are trying to impose the most high bound, antifreedom interpretation of the religion at its most narrow on muslims, and so i call those people islamists. they are a threat to us. they say the whole time what their intention is to recreate the old muslim empire to go beyond that and to conquer, you know, britain, to conquer america. they are explicit, and to impose
sharia, the rule of islamic law upon anywhere muslims live. those are islamists. some are violence. some equip themselves with the weapon of war and terrorism. some of them are not violent, but they believe they can conquer the west through a kind of cultural creep, if you like, a cultural takeover. be worried by them. they are all islamists. some are violent; some are not violent. on the other hand, there's a lot of muslims who are not islamists, and we must keep both in our minds. there is a difference between those who interpret religion in a way that threatens us, and there's those who belong and subscribe to muslim who are muslims and themselves threatened by islamists. we have to keep those two things in our mind at the same time. that's what i tried to do.
that's what e perceivedded to be the case which was the way in which to my great horror and fear that the british ruling class was giving in to islamism, to this attempt to take over, to this attempt to undermine britain and the encroachment of islamic values in britain, and the british ruling class for a variety of reasons said, let's go along with this. that's why i wrote the book, but in the book, i was extremely careful that i think we must be to acknowledge there's many, many muslims who find this equally frightening and worrying and have nothing to do with it. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. ..