Turkey’s Davutoglu Gives Parliament Explanations On His Statements I

TURKEY’S DAVUTOGLU GIVES PARLIAMENT EXPLANATIONS ON HIS STATEMENTS IN ARMENIA

December 16, 2013 | 10:01

Turkish FM Ahmet Davutoglu stated at his parliament that the problems
with Armenia cannot be solved by making propaganda against one another
behind closed doors.

At the Turkish parliament, Davutoglu responded to the opposition MPs
that criticized him for his statements made during his recent trip to
Armenia and with respect to the events that occurred in 1915, reports.

Haberx website of Turkey.

“I, also as a scholar, believe that history can be built solely within
a fair recollection. We cannot solve [the problems] by continuing to
recite by heart what has become routine.

“Turkey accepts the Azerbaijan-Armenia relations and the situation
in the Caucasus in three points:

“1) Turkey and Armenia, as two neighbors, shall live side-by-side
and respect one another.

“2) The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia shall be settled and
Azerbaijan’ occupied territories shall be liberated.

“3) The Turks and the Armenians, two people that have lived together
for 900 years, shall revive the 900 years of shared recollections
and live as nations that are friendly to each other.

“Our meeting [in Armenia] along the lines of a shared fair recollection
with Armenia and the Armenians is not a crime; it was something that
was needed,” Davutoglu said, in particular.

From: Baghdasarian

http://news.am/eng/news/185543.html

Opposition Appeals High Court On Pension Reform

OPPOSITION APPEALS HIGH COURT ON PENSION REFORM

Monday, December 16th, 2013

People demonstrated against the controversial pension reform bill
outside the Armenian parliament in Yerevan last week. Dec. 5, 2013.

(Photo: Photolur)

YEREVAN (Yerkir Media)-Calling a government-backed bill on pension
reform unconstitutional the parliamentary blocs of four parties not
represented in the ruling coalition on Monday announced that they
will send an appeal to the Constitutional Court.

A petition to the country’s high court signed by the parliament members
of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Armenian National Congress,
Prosperous Armenia Party and Heritage Party was delivered to Speaker
of National Assembly Hovik Abrahamyan, who is mandated by law to
transfer it to the Constitutional Court.

A bill to reform Armenia’s pension system, to go into effect on January
1, was passed by the ruling Republican Party of Armenia and mandates
that individuals under 40 pay more social security taxes.

Armenia’s efforts to transition to a new system whereby the amount
of pensions will depend on workers’ lifelong contributions to pension
funds has created controversy.

The appeal calls on the Constitutional Court to deem the section of
the bill mandating high taxes as unconstitutional. The authors of
the appeal say the provision is a violation of basic human rights.

The four parties had asked to table the high tax component of the
bill for one year. However, members of the ruling Republican Party
of Armenia did not show up to Parliament to discuss and vote on the
matter. The four parties called the measure unconstitutional.

ARF Parliamentary bloc member Artsvik Minasian announced a protest
march on Tuesday. Protesters will march from Liberty Square to the
Constitutional Court building in support of the appeal to the high
court.

From: Baghdasarian

http://asbarez.com/117456/opposition-appeals-high-court-on-pension-reform/

Civilitas Foundation to open office in Georgia

Hraparak: Civilitas Foundation to open office in Georgia

11:27 – 13.12.13

The Civilitas Foundation, whose name is largely associated with former
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan’s name, is said to have lost part of
its energy after last year’s `money laundering case’.

Citing its sources, the paper claims that the energy has been
transferred to a bigger office founded recently in Istanbul, Turkey.
Another office, the paper says, is going to open in Georgia’s capital
Tbilisi.

Oskanyan, now a lawmaker of Prosperous Armenia, was in Brussels these
days to negotiate the party’s membership in the European Conservatives
and Reformists Group, adds the paper.

It notes further that the Turkish prime minister-led Justice and
Development party has recently joined the group, having suspended its
membership in the European People’s Party.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2013/12/13/hraparak1/

Mass & Density

Mass & Density

Garen Yeghparian

BY GAREN YEGHPARIAN

Mass is how much stuff there is. Density is how tightly packed the
stuff is. It’s the old `Which weighs more? A pound of feathers or a
pound of lead?’ query. Which, in turn, begs the question, `which one
can have more impact?’

It seems to me there’s a human analogy to this that applies to our
Diaspora’s communities.

We have large and small communities (mass/stuff). Some are compact,
even ghettoized, while others are sparsely populated
(density/tight-packing). But in this analogy, density doesn’t always
measure just the concentration of Armenians living in an area, but how
well organized they are to pursue collective needs.

We need `density’ in the sense of organization. However, we can
probably make do, for brief periods (maximum one generation), with
large `mass’ in our communities. Ideally, we would have mass and
density, but that’s not always possible, nor always desirable.

An example of `mass’ is the Los Angeles area multi-community. Some of
its component areas’ Armenian settlements are both massive and dense
(though not in the organizational sense, just geographically) –
Glendale, Hollywood, North Hollywood. This kind of density is useful
in that identity maintenance is somewhat easier because everyone and
everything – community structures, family, friends, organizations – are
all physically very close, so everyone goes their merry way `being’
Armenian, never having to think about it. But take any one person
familiar with this kind of community and drop them in Nebraska instead
of NoHo, and they’re lost to the Diaspora. That’s because s/he is not
integrated organizationally and awareness-wise into our community,
s/he is just `there’ living, not doing things that are helpful,
participatory, engaged.

Conversely, in places like Houston, where we’ve developed a reasonable
level of organization, despite small numbers, the community does good
work. And that’s in a state like Texas where the political deck is
stacked against us because of oil-based chumminess with Azerbaijan
(among other reasons).

When organized, we can nurture one another and pursue resolution of
our issues and concerns. But one thing we often fail to do, even when
we are `dense’ organizationally, is to develop the AWARENESS it takes
to maintain that very same `density’ so that the next generation can
do the same. How many people do you know who counsel their family
member or friends who are chasing work in the Montanas and Mexicos of
the world, that s/he who is moving should immediately contact the new
locale’s Armenian groups and plug in; or, absent existing groups, to
quickly organize one, and start to educate the political leadership of
the area and establish strong bonds of community with any other
earlier Armenian arrivals in the area.

Look at what non-`massive’ but `dense’ communities such as those in
Racine (Wisconsin), New Orleans, Cyprus, Australia, etc. have achieved
recently or ongoingly either in the political realm or in building and
maintaining community/identity.

Please get involved, that’s the first step to solving any of our
problems. Maybe `involvement’ can be your New Year’s resolution two
weeks from now.

From: Baghdasarian

http://asbarez.com/117412/mass-density/

Exalted Purpose

Exalted Purpose

By Knarik Meneshian // December 10, 2013

GLENVIEW, Ill. (A.W.) – On the occasion of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation’s (ARF) 123rd anniversary, the film `Garegin Njdeh’ was
shown on Saturday evening, Nov. 23, in Glenview at the Armenian
Community Center’s Shahnasarian Hall, followed by a reception. The
Chicago `Christapor’ Chapter of the ARF and the Chicago chapter of the
Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society sponsored the
event.

Photo: Courtesy of Alice Varjabedian (daughter of Hovagim Hovagimian)

The film, with English subtitles and an array of outstanding actors
and actresses, delved not only into the life of a great national hero
but also into a nation’s struggle for self-determination. Filmed in
Armenia, Russia, Poland, and France, the poignant and beautifully
produced motion picture was written by Krist Manaryan and produced and
directed by Hrach Keshishyan. The cinematographer was Mkrtich
Malkhasyan.

The name Garegin Njdeh had been introduced to the Armenian community
of Chicago before, not in a film or in the song `Garegin Njdehi
Yerku,’ but during a lecture he had given in the fall of 1933 at a
meeting of the Chicago chapter of the Armenian Relief Society (ARS).
The lecture was titled, `The Woman’s Role and Obligation.’ The
following are a few quotes from Njdeh’s lecture:

`A people is nothing but the spiritual expression of woman… A people,
in whose life the woman has no role, has no future… It is
indispensable that the Armenian remain Armenian outside of Armenia.
Within and outside of Armenia, the woman’s role must be to spread and
inspire the concept of Fatherland… The Armenian mother is the one who
must instill belief, strength, and pride in the soul of the race… The
nation that looks down is not a nation. The one that looks up sees
ahead… As long as the world pities us, we shall remain slaves…’

The late Hovagim Hovagimian (the son of Archpriest Karekin Hovagimian,
the Chicagoland and Wisconsin Armenian communities’ first priest,
serving during the 1920’s to 1930’s), a long-time correspondent and
contributor to the Armenian-language newspaper Hairenik and an active
member of the ARF’s Chicago chapter, wrote of the momentous event,
which was published in the Hairenik on Nov. 18, 1933.

Hovagimian’s meeting with Njdeh in Chicago had not been his first.
They had initially met in Yerevan at the end of 1915, when Hovagimian
was serving in the Reserve Regiment in Nork and in the Fifth Brigade
led by Vartan, the hero of Khanasor. In his memoirs, Hovagimian had
written of Njdeh, `He wore a Bulgarian officer’s uniform and conducted
the drills of the Armenian volunteers in Nork… He was accessible to
everyone, modest and sociable… He hated pretense… He had a cultured
and thoughtful mind, and he was a great and inspiring orator. He was
the model of an indefatigable, selfless, and patriotic soldier of the
Armenian World…’

During Njdeh’s visit to Chicago, he stayed at the home of Mr. and Mrs.
Hovagim and Vergine Hovagimian. Years later, upon hearing of Njdeh’s
death, Hovagimian had written, ` Caught up with sad memories, we (he
and his family) often glance up at a pair of Italian flower pots,
which were given to us by Unger Njdeh, and see them as mementoes full
of Armenian spirit… Incense and Blessing be his immortal memory.’

General Garegin Njdeh Ter Harutyunyan, the great revolutionary and
national hero, political activist, military leader, and founder of the
Armenian youth group called the Tseghagron – renamed the Armenian Youth
Federation (AYF) in 1933 – offered the ultimate gift to his beloved
Armenian nation: his life. Often just called Njdeh, which means
`pilgrim’ in Armenian, his life was a journey of exalted purpose.

The youngest of four children, he was born in the village of Kznut in
Nakhichevan, Armenia, in the winter of 1886. He was the son of a
priest, Ter (Father) Yeghishe, who it is believed was poisoned at a
wedding. His widowed mother, Yeretsgeen (wife of a priest) Dirouhi,
raised their four children.

Witnessing the oppression and aggression that befell his people again
and again, and their defense of life, home, and land, at the age of 17
Njdeh joined the Armenian liberation movement. He studied law in St.
Petersburg, Russia, and continued his education at the military
college in Bulgaria. In 1948, Njdeh was taken into custody as a
political prisoner by the Soviet government and sentenced to serve 25
years in prison. He died in Vladimir prison in Vladimir, Russia, in
the winter of 1955 and was buried in the prison yard.

In the summer of 1983, his family secretly arranged to have his
remains moved to Armenia, where he was laid to rest at Spitakavor
Church, near Yeghegnadzor, located near the foot of the Zangezur
mountain range – his beloved mountains – with some of his remains buried
on the slopes of Mt. Khustup near Kapan.

Garegin Njdeh – `Incense and Blessing be his immortal memory.’

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/12/10/exalted-purpose/

Chess: Armenian Ter-Sahakyan emerges champion

Press Trust of India
Dec 14 2013

Armenian Ter-Sahakyan emerges champion

19:18 HRS IST

Kolkata, Dec 14 (PTI) Fifth seed GM Samvel Ter-Sahakyan of Armenia
emerged champion with 7.5 points in the SREI International Grandmaster
Chess tournament here today.

In an intense battle, there was a five-way tie for the top spot with
7.5 points each and Ter-Sahakyan edged out IM Mihail Mozharov of
Russia by half Bucholz tie-break points to bag the winners purse of Rs
2 lakh.

Three GM norms and three IM norms were achieved in the 10-round tournament.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.ptinews.com/news/4235569_Armenian-Ter-Sahakyan-emerges-champion-.html

ANKARA: Press Release regarding visit of Davutoglu to Yerevan

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey
Dec 11 2013

PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE VISIT OF H.E. MR. AHMET DAVUTOÄ LU,
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY TO YEREVAN ON 12
DECEMBER 2013 ON THE OCCASION OF THE 29TH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF
MINISTERS OF THE BLACK SEA ECONOMIC COOPERATION (BSEC)

ANKARA, Turkey
#327, Dec 11, 2013

H.E. Mr. Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Turkey, will pay a visit to Armenia to attend the 29th Meeting of
the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of the
Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), to be held on 12 December 2013
in Yerevan, of which Turkey is a founding member and is hosting its
Secretariat.

This meeting is deemed crucial for the member countries reiterating
their commitment to the goal of providing an impetus for efficient
functioning of the BSEC and focusing on concrete cooperation projects
within the organization.

At the 29th Meeting of the Council of Ministers, an evaluation will be
made on the New Economic Agenda Document which was adopted at the 20th
Anniversary Summit Meeting of the BSEC and which presents the 2020
vision of the Organization for the Black Sea in several areas
including trade, transportation, energy, communication, science and
technology, tourism and education as well as the performance of the
targets designated within the framework of the Action Plan for the
implementation of this document. Further, on the basis of common
expectations of the member countries, an exchange of views on how to
furnish the Organization with a more effective and visible structure
will take place.

From: Baghdasarian

Announcing the judges panel for the AdMob Student App Challenge

Google Student Blog
Dec 11 2013

Announcing the judges panel for the AdMob Student App Challenge

Posted by Jeff Miner, AdMob Student App Challenge team
Posted: Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Google is proud to announce the judging panel for The AdMob Student
App Challenge. Our six judges have either built apps or advised
developers, and between them have accumulated hundreds of millions of
downloads.

Toni Fingerroos: Toni Fingerroos is the CEO and founder of the mobile
games company Fingersoft. He developed Hill Climb Racing which reached
1st place in top free games in the USA in Google Play and has been
downloaded over 100 million times globally. In 2013 he received the
Game Developer of the Year award in Finland. Fingerroos came up with
the name Fingersoft when he was ten years old, with a passion for
developing games. After years of making games for his friends to enjoy
he wanted to learn more about business and economics. He co-founded
two companies and also assumed managerial responsibility. After
gaining experience from these businesses he was ready to start a
company of his own that would make use of his skills and laid-back
attitude. In 2012 he officially founded Fingersoft Ltd. pursuing his
life-long dream of running an independent game studio.

Edward Kim: Edward Kim got his start in the Android development world
by developing and entering his apps in various Android development
contests. Most notably, he won 3rd place in Google’s Android Developer
Challenge 2, taking a $25,000 prize. He also won 1st place in
Verizon’s `Power Your App’ contest, taking a $75,000 prize. Edward Kim
is the co-founder and CTO of ZenPayroll. Prior to co-founding
ZenPayroll, Edward was the CEO and co-founder of Picwing.com, a Y
Combinator-funded startup and photo-printing platform that was
acquired in 2011. Edward holds a BS and MS in Electrical Engineering
from Stanford University.

Artavazd Mehrabyan: Artavazd Mehrabyan is co-founder & COO of PicsArt:
a fun and full-featured mobile photo editing, drawing app, and art
community for Android and iOS. He worked previously as Senior Software
Architect at prominent web portal Lycos Europe. Artavazd has conducted
practical classes in Software Architecture at the American University
of Armenia, and has been a guest lecturer at Yerevan State
Polytechnic. He is a graduate of the American University of Armenia.

Sana Choudary: Over the last two years Sana has been the CEO and
co-founder of YetiZen, a cornerstone of the game developer ecosystem.
This includes the YetiZen accelerator, the wildly popular
games-focused accelerator and the YetiZen Innovation Lab, the only
game developer community space of its kind for game developer business
education and synergy in the new and ever evolving world of social
mobile. It has served over 10,000 game developers in the last 12
months. Sana Choudary has a reputation for being a powerful force in
creating successful entrepreneurs. She has been highly active in the
entrepreneurial and gaming communities throughout her career as a
leading member of Women 2.0, StartupWeekend; and as a co-founder of
NYC’s largest entrepreneurial group, Ultra Light Startups. In addition
to YetiZen, Sana chairs TiE SF and TiEcon Youth Track, the world’s
largest entrepreneurship conference. Through YetiZen, Sana is
intimately involved with hundreds of startups, gaming veterans,
investors, and gaming giants, giving her a unique and unparalleled
perspective on the game space.

Jake Ward: Jake Ward oversees operations and programming for the
Application Developers Alliance, including media relations, marketing,
membership and corporate partnerships. He has more than 10 years of
experience in public relations, marketing and public policy. He has
led strategic communication and issue-advocacy campaigns on behalf of
Fortune 100 companies, public interest groups and industry
associations.

Taizo Son: Taizo San is CEO at Movida Japan, Chairman at GungHo Online
Entertainment and Advisor at SoftBank. `I have worked fervently for
the past 15 years to start new IT-related venture companies. In 2002 I
founded GungHo, one of Japan’s most successful online gaming
companies, and our flagship game Puzzle & Dragons is the world’s top
grossing app for iOS and Android. With Movida Japan, a seed
accelerator I founded in 2009, we aim to significantly boost the
venture ecosystem in East Asia by 2030. I also serve as an Advisor at
SoftBank, a Japanese Telecom and IT conglomerate with more than 1300
subsidiaries and affiliates worldwide, founded and led by my brother
Masayoshi Son.`

Our panel is excited to see what our participants come up with during
the contest. Be sure to follow AdMob on Google + for any
Challenge-related announcements, and to check out the Challenge
website.

From: Baghdasarian

http://googleforstudents.blogspot.com/

A Government of the Billionaires, for the Billionaires, by the Billi

A Government of the Billionaires, for the Billionaires, by the Billionaires

Informed Comment (Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion)
TomDispatch
Dec. 13, 2013

By Bill Moyers

I met Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1987 when I was
creating a series for public television called In Search of the
Constitution, celebrating the bicentennial of our founding document.
By then, he had served on the court longer than any of his colleagues
and had written close to 500 majority opinions, many of them
addressing fundamental questions of equality, voting rights, school
segregation, and – in New York Times v. Sullivan in particular – the
defense of a free press.

Those decisions brought a storm of protest from across the country.
He claimed that he never took personally the resentment and anger
directed at him. He did, however, subsequently reveal that his own
mother told him she had always liked his opinions when he was on the
New Jersey court, but wondered now that he was on the Supreme Court,
`Why can’t you do it the same way?’ His answer: `We have to discharge
our responsibility to enforce the rights in favor of minorities,
whatever the majority reaction may be.’

Although a liberal, he worried about the looming size of
government. When he mentioned that modern science might be creating `a
Frankenstein,’ I asked, `How so?’ He looked around his chambers and
replied, `The very conversation we’re now having can beoverheard.
Science has done things that, as I understand it, makes it possible
through these drapes and those windows to get something in here that
takes down what we’re talking about.’

That was long before the era of cyberspace and the maximum
surveillance state that grows topsy-turvy with every administration.
How I wish he were here now – and still on the Court!

My interview with him was one of 12 episodes in that series on the
Constitution. Another concerned a case he had heard back in 1967. It
involved a teacher named Harry Keyishian who had been fired because he
would not sign a New York State loyalty oath. Justice Brennan ruled
that the loyalty oath and other anti-subversive state statutes of that
era violated First Amendment protections of academic freedom.

I tracked Keyishian down and interviewed him. Justice Brennan watched
that program and was fascinated to see the actual person behind the
name on his decision. The journalist Nat Hentoff, who followed
Brennan’s work closely, wrote, `He may have seen hardly any of the
litigants before him, but he searched for a sense of them in the cases
that reached him.’ Watching the interview with Keyishian, he said,
`It was the first time I had seen him. Until then, I had no idea that
he and the other teachers would have lost everything if the case had
gone the other way.’

Toward the end of his tenure, when he was writing an increasing number
of dissents on the Rehnquist Court, Brennan was asked if he was
getting discouraged. He smiled and said, `Look, pal, we’ve always
known – the Framers knew – that liberty is a fragile thing. You can’t
give up.’ And he didn’t.

The Donor Class and Streams of Dark Money

The historian Plutarch warned us long ago of what happens when there
is no brake on the power of great wealth to subvert the electorate.
`The abuse of buying and selling votes,’ he wrote of Rome, `crept in
and money began to play an important part in determining elections.
Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to
the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the
power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.’

We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have the Roberts Court that
consistently privileges the donor class.

We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have a Senate in which, as a
study by the political scientist Larry Bartels reveals, `Senators
appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent
constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while
the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income
distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’
roll call votes.’

We don’t have emperors yet, but we have a House of Representatives
controlled by the far right that is now nourished by streams of `dark
money’ unleashed thanks to the gift bestowed on the rich by the
Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.

We don’t have emperors yet, but one of our two major parties is now
dominated by radicals engaged in a crusade of voter suppression aimed
at the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor; while the other
party, once the champion of everyday working people, has been so
enfeebled by its own collaboration with the donor class that it offers
only token resistance to the forces that have demoralized everyday
Americans.

Writing in the Guardian recently, the social critic George Monbiot
commented,

`So I don’t blame people for giving up on politics… When a
state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a
mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political system
ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians [of the
main parties] stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a
grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires
us to participate?’

Why are record numbers of Americans on food stamps? Because record
numbers of Americans are in poverty. Why are people falling through
the cracks? Because there are cracks to fall through. It is simply
astonishing that in this rich nation more than 21 million Americans
are still in need of full-time work, many of them running out of
jobless benefits, while our financial class pockets record profits,
spends lavishly on campaigns to secure a political order that serves
its own interests, and demands that our political class push for
further austerity. Meanwhile, roughly 46 million Americans live at or
below the poverty line and, with the exception of Romania, no
developed country has a higher percent of kids in poverty than we do.
Yet a study by scholars at Northwestern University and Vanderbilt
finds little support among the wealthiest Americans for policy reforms
to reduce income inequality.

Class Prerogatives

Listen! That sound you hear is the shredding of the social contract.

Ten years ago the Economist magazine – no friend of Marxism – warned:
`The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based
society.’ And as a recent headline in the Columbia Journalism Review
put it: `The line between democracy and a darker social order is
thinner than you think.’

We are this close – this close! – to losing our democracy to the
mercenary class. So close it’s as if we’re leaning way over the rim of
the Grand Canyon waiting for a swift kick in the pants.

When Justice Brennan and I talked privately in his chambers before
that interview almost 20 years ago, I asked him how he had come to his
liberal sentiments. `It was my neighborhood,’ he said. Born to Irish
immigrants in 1906, as the harsh indignities of the Gilded Age brought
hardship and deprivation to his kinfolk and neighbors, he saw `all
kinds of suffering – people had to struggle.’ He never forgot those
people or their struggles, and he believed it to be our collective
responsibility to create a country where they would have a fair chance
to a decent life. `If you doubt it,’ he said, `read the Preamble [to
the Constitution].’
He then asked me how I had come to my philosophy about government
(knowing that I had been in both the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations). I don’t remember my exact words, but I reminded him
that I had been born in the midst of the Great Depression to parents,
one of whom had to drop out of school in the fourth grade, the other
in the eighth, because they were needed in the fields to pick cotton
to help support their families.

Franklin Roosevelt, I recalled, had been president during the first 11
years of my life. My father had listened to his radio `fireside
chats’ as if they were gospel; my brother went to college on the
G.I. Bill; and I had been the beneficiary of public schools, public
libraries, public parks, public roads, and two public universities.
How could I not think that what had been so good for me would be good
for others, too?

That was the essence of what I told Justice Brennan. Now, I wish that
I could talk to him again, because I failed to mention perhaps the
most important lesson about democracy I ever learned.

On my 16th birthday in 1950, I went to work for the daily newspaper in
the small East Texas town where I grew up. It was a racially divided
town – about 20,000 people, half of them white, half of them black – a
place where you could grow up well-loved, well-taught, and
well-churched, and still be unaware of the lives of others merely
blocks away. It was nonetheless a good place to be a cub reporter:
small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning
something new every day. I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the
old-timers in the newsroom were on vacation or out sick, and I got
assigned to report on what came to be known as the `Housewives’
Rebellion.’ Fifteen women in town (all white) decided not to pay the
Social Security withholding tax for their domestic workers (all
black).

They argued that Social Security was unconstitutional, that imposing
it was taxation without representation, and that – here’s my favorite
part – `requiring us to collect [the tax] is no different from
requiring us to collect the garbage.’ They hired themselves a lawyer
– none other than Martin Dies, Jr., the former congressman best known,
or worst known, for his work as head of the House Committee on
Un-American Activities in the witch-hunting days of the 1930s and
1940s. They went to court – and lost. Social Security was
constitutional, after all. They held their noses and paid the tax.

The stories I helped report were picked up by the Associated Press and
circulated nationwide. One day, the managing editor, Spencer Jones,
called me over and pointed to the AP ticker beside his desk. Moving
across the wire was a notice citing the reporters on our paper for the
reporting we had done on the `rebellion.’ I spotted my name and was
hooked. In one way or another, after a detour through seminary and
then into politics and government, I’ve been covering the class war
ever since.
Those women in Marshall, Texas, were among its advance guard. Not bad
people, they were regulars at church, their children were my
classmates, many of them were active in community affairs, and their
husbands were pillars of the business and professional class in town.
They were respectable and upstanding citizens all, so it took me a
while to figure out what had brought on that spasm of reactionary
defiance. It came to me one day, much later: they simply couldn’t see
beyond their own prerogatives.

Fiercely loyal to their families, to their clubs, charities, and
congregations – fiercely loyal, in other words, to their own kind –
they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people
like themselves. The black women who washed and ironed their laundry,
cooked their families’ meals, cleaned their bathrooms, wiped their
children’s bottoms, and made their husbands’ beds, these women, too,
would grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and
face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show for their years
of labor but the creases on their brows and the knots on their
knuckles. There would be nothing for them to live on but the modest
return on their toil secured by the collaborative guarantee of a
safety net.

The Unfinished Work of America

In one way or another, this is the oldest story in America: the
struggle to determine whether `we, the people’ is a moral compact
embedded in a political contract or merely a charade masquerading as
piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their
own way of life at the expense of others.

I should make it clear that I don’t harbor any idealized notion of
politics and democracy. Remember, I worked for Lyndon Johnson. Nor
do I romanticize `the people.’ You should read my mail and posts on
right-wing websites. I understand the politician in Texas who said of
the state legislature, `If you think these guys are bad, you should
see their constituents.’
But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference
between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens
(something otherwise known as social justice) and one whose
institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud. That can be
the difference between democracy and plutocracy.

Toward the end of Justice Brennan’s tenure on the Supreme Court, he
made a speech that went to the heart of the matter. He said:

`We do not yet have justice, equal and practical, for the poor, for
the members of minority groups, for the criminally accused, for the
displaced persons of the technological revolution, for alienated
youth, for the urban masses… Ugly inequities continue to mar the
face of the nation. We are surely nearer the beginning than the end of
the struggle.’

And so we are. One hundred and fifty years ago, Abraham Lincoln stood
on the blood-soaked battlefield of Gettysburg and called Americans to
`the great task remaining.’ That `unfinished work,’ as he named it,
remained the same then as it was when America’s founding generation
began it. And it remains the same today: to breathe new life into the
promise of the Declaration of Independence and to assure that the
Union so many have sacrificed to save is a union worth saving.

Bill Moyers has received 35 Emmy awards, nine Peabody Awards, the
National Academy of Television’s Lifetime Achievement Award, and an
honorary doctor of fine arts from the American Film Institute over his
40 years in broadcast journalism. He is currently host of the weekly
public television series Moyers & Company and president of the
Schumann Media Center, a non-profit organization which supports
independent journalism. He delivered these remarks (slightly adapted
here) at the annual Legacy Awards dinner of the Brennan Center for
Justice, a non-partisan public policy institute in New York City that
focuses on voting rights, money in politics, equal justice, and other
seminal issues of democracy. This is his first TomDispatch piece.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook or Tumblr. Check
out the newest Dispatch Book, Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the
Wounded Return From America’s Wars – The Untold Story.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/government-billionaires-for.html

Encore: America’s Gilded Capital

Encore: America’s Gilded Capital

Bill talks with New York Times journalist Mark Leibovich about This Town, his book on how money rules Washington, DC.

Moyers & Company
December 6, 2013

BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company…

MARK LEIBOVICH: If you can sell yourself as someone who knows how
Washington works, someone who has these relationships, someone who can
get on the phone and get the president of the United States to pardon,
you know, your fugitive client, that’s a very, very marketable
commodity. I mean, if you see– if you are seen as someone who knows
how this town works, someone who is a usual suspect in this town, you
can dine out for years. That’s why no one leaves.

ANNOUNCER: Funding is provided by: Carnegie Corporation of New York,
celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and
permanent good in the world.
The Kohlberg Foundation. Independent Production Fund, with support
from The Partridge Foundation, a John and Polly Guth Charitable Fund.
The Clements Foundation.
Park Foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical
issues. The Herb Alpert Foundation, supporting organizations whose
mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society.
The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation.
The John D. And Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, committed to
building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at
Macfound.Org.’ Anne Gumowitz.
The Betsy And Jesse Fink Foundation.
The HKH Foundation.
Barbara G. Fleischman.
And by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing
customized individual and group retirement products. That’s why we’re
your retirement company.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. I want to tell you about a book you simply have
to read. I promise, you will laugh and cry and by the end, I think
you’ll be ready for the revolution. The title is `This Town,’ an
up-close look at how our nation’s capital really works. I can tell
you, it’s not a pretty picture — the story of a city’s bipartisan
lust for power, cash and notoriety so overpowering that everyone and
everything else gets sucked into its undertow. Government becomes no
longer the servant of the people but in the thrall of big money,
lobbyists and a media happy to live off its fancy leftovers in a
feeding frenzy of gossip and shallow speculation. How appropriate that
a capital built on a swamp has sunk so low into the stinking mud.
Mark Leibovich is the chief national correspondent for The New York
Times Magazine and is the author of This Town, which has everyone
who’s anyone in Washington talking and whispering. What a tale it
is. Mark Leibovich is with me now. Welcome.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Hi Bill. Good to be here.

BILL MOYERS: I’ve read your book twice. It’s fun to read. It’s eye
opening. I learned a lot from it. And yet, at the core of it, there’s
a tragic story. Do you see that?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Absolutely. I didn’t see it fully as I was writing it,
but I see it in how people outside of Washington have reacted to
it. The tragic story is that what has grown up in this city that was
supposedly built on public service is this permanent feudal class of
insiders, of people who are not term limited. Of people who never
leave and never die, figuratively never die. And who are there and who
are doing very, very well for themselves, very, very well for
Washington, and not very, very well for the United States.

BILL MOYERS: Can you frame the historical moment in which you’re
writing?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I would frame it really over the last ten, 15, maybe
20 years you’ve had this explosion of money in politics.

BILL MOYERS: Gold rush, you call it.

MARK LEIBOVICH: It’s a gold rush. People now come to Washington to get
rich. That was never the defining ethic of the town, certainly 30
years ago. There is now so much money. It is now the wealthiest
community in the United States. It is home to seven of the wealthiest
ten counties in the United States. And frankly– it is– I mean, the
power is obviously going to be very alluring.
There are going to be some idealists who’s going to be the
make-a-difference types. But ultimately this has more in common with
Silicon Valley, with Hollywood, than with Wall Street. Which is a rush
to cash in. It is a rush to somehow take from this big entity, this
big marketplace, some kind of reward, as opposed to doing something
that will reward the country.

BILL MOYERS: What’s stunning is how disconnected Washington is, the
political Washington that you write about, from the lives of everyday
people. Is it because of this gold rush?

MARK LEIBOVICH: When you look at the disconnect between Washington and
the rest of the country, which people talk about. I mean, there’s a
shorthand, “Well, Washington is out of touch,” right? People don’t
fully know what that is made of. I mean, I think you see intuitively
on TV or when you visit Washington, that people don’t talk and deal
with people the way most Americans talk and deal with each other. I
mean, there’s a language of obsequiousness, a language of selling, a
language of spin. But most– but look– it is a wealth culture. These
are people who are doing very, very well. It’s true in the
demographics, it’s true in the sensibility.

BILL MOYERS: The people you write about in here seem very comfortable
with this town.

MARK LEIBOVICH: They do. I mean, it’s been very, very good for them. I
mean, it’s– look, this town has worked for a lot of people, a lot of
very good people, a lot of very bad people, and a lot of very mediocre
people. But these are– a lot of this book is filled with profiles of
people who have made this town work for them.

BILL MOYERS: What do the readers out across the country tell you about
the picture you have reported?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well the disconnect, it’s interesting, Bill, has been
very much displayed in the reaction of the book. I mean, I think in
Washington you have had a very carnival like reaction to the
book. It’s, like, “Oh, who wins? Who loses? What are the nuggets? Will
Leibovich be cast out? Will he not be invited to lunch with party X or
Y again?” So you have a very silly and shallow read inside the bell
way, which is titillating I guess in its own way. Outside of
Washington you have a truer sense of the outrage. You have a sense of
an education. You have a sense of, “Oh my goodness. I’ve known
Washington has been something I’ve been disappointed in. But I didn’t
know it looked like this. I didn’t know it had come to all of this
just this– incredible contempt for what they are supposed to be there
for.” Contempt for what their constituents are, i.e., us.

BILL MOYERS: You say political Washington is `an inbred company town
where party differences are easily subsumed by membership in the
club.’ And you talked about the club. “The club swells for the night
into the ultimate bubble world. They become part of a system that
rewards, more than anything a system of self-perpetuation.”

MARK LEIBOVICH: Self-perpetuation is a key point in all of this. It is
what you’re going to– how you’re going to continue. I mean, the
original notion of the founders is that a president or a public
servant would serve a term, couple years, return to their communities,
return to their farm. Now the organizing principle of life in
Washington is how are you going to keep it going? Whether it’s how
you’re going to stay in office, you know, by pleasing your leadership
so that you get money, by raising enough money so that you can get
reelected by getting a gig after you’re done with Congress, after
you’re done in the White House, by getting the next gig.

BILL MOYERS: `Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’ it ain’t.

MARK LEIBOVICH: No, it isn’t. And look, I tried to find a Mr. Smith
character. I wanted to, and I had some back and forth with the first
publisher of this book, which is not the ultimate publisher of this
book, about finding someone to root for. They wanted someone to feel
good about to sort of run through the narrative. And there are people
I think I could root for, the people I like in Washington, I think
people who are there for the right reasons. But I couldn’t find him or
her. And ultimately, I gave up trying. And I tried to sort of create a
cumulative picture over a five year period.

BILL MOYERS: What does that say to you?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I think ultimately it says that this is not– well,
first of all, it’s a very cautious culture. And I think cowardice is
rewarded at every step of the way.

BILL MOYERS: How so?

MARK LEIBOVICH: It’s rewarded in Congress. You everything about the
Congressional system, whether it’s leadership, whether it’s how money
is raised, is going to reward cowardice. The true mavericks are going
to be punished in some ways. If you are going– if you want to build a
career outside of office when you’re done, when you’re voted out as a
lobbyist, as a consultant, as many of them do, you are absolutely in–
you are absolutely encouraged not anger too many people. Not–

BILL MOYERS: Not take a big stand?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Not take a big stand, right. No truth is going to be
told here by– based on any sort of cowardly go along, get along
way. And I think that there are many ways in which the money, the
system is financed– the politics are financed the way the media
works, that will not under any circumstances reward someone who takes
a stand.

BILL MOYERS: As you and I both know, many Americans see Washington
today as a polarized, dysfunctional city. One that is not sufficiently
bipartisan. But you describe it as a place that `becomes a
determinedly bipartisan team when there is money to be made.’

MARK LEIBOVICH: That is absolutely true. I mean, ultimately, the
business of Washington relies on things not getting done. And this is
a bipartisan imperative. If a tax reform bill passed tomorrow, if an
immigration bill passed tomorrow, that’s tens of billions of dollars
in consulting, lobbying, messaging fees that are not going to be paid
out.

BILL MOYERS: Let’s take one example. April 20th, 2010, the Deepwater
Horizon oil well, oil rig, explodes in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven
people killed, the largest marine spill in the history of the
industry. Oil gushes onto the seafloor for at least 84 days. You,
Leibovich, look at that crude oil flowing into the gulf, and you see
an equally large flow of cash spreading across Washington, covering
our nation’s capital to, as you say, “manage the crisis.” Now, tell us
how they set about to manage that crisis.

MARK LEIBOVICH: So BP is in this whole heap of trouble, okay? They
have this disaster that they are pegged with. The president looks
powerless. I mean, what are you going to do? You have this awful
calamity taking place. Systematically BP is spending tens of millions
of dollars to basically tie up the most prominent Washington
Democratic and Republican lobbyists, media consultants, ad people, to
where you had an all-star roster. And all of a sudden, everyone is
working together. I mean, you had rhetoric of President Obama, you
know, criticizing BP. You had BP saying, “Oh no, we’re going to make
this right.” You had Republicans saying, “Oh, the president should be
doing more.” So you had this TV sort of debate, the same noise you
would see in any other story juxtaposed with these terrible oil soaked
pelican pictures from the gulf, which in fact the city is just reaping
this bounty.

BILL MOYERS: You say BP, British Petroleum, put together a beltway
dream team that included Republican super lobbyists like Ken
Duberstein, Democratic super lobbyist Tony Podesta, former vice
president Cheney’s one time spokeswoman Anne Womack-Kolton, Republican
flacks like John Feehery and Democratic flacks like Steve McMahon and
McMahon’s business partner, the Republican media guru Alex
Castellanos, who’s a contributor to CNN.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes. McMahon is on MSNBC so it’s very bipartisan that
way too.

BILL MOYERS: And McMahon, the Democrat and Castellanos the Republican
are partners in a firm called Purple Strategies. BP hires them to
spearhead this $50 million television campaign you talk about.

TONY HAYWARD: To those affected and your families, I am deeply sorry.

BILL MOYERS: They were brought, you say, into the fold by the
Democratic operative, Hilary Rosen, who was working for a London-based
firm that was also working for BP. And she was also a pundit for
CNN. I mean, what a web.

MARK LEIBOVICH: And again, I think the other piece of this is that a
year later Geoff Morrell, who is the head spokesman for the Pentagon
under, you know, President Obama’s Pentagon, has become the chief
Washington spokesman for BP.

BILL MOYERS: Former White House correspondent for ABC News.

MARK LEIBOVICH: ABC News. He followed Bob Gates to the Pentagon first
with President Bush then with President Obama. Sort of a classic
revolving door figure, Geoff is. But no, so– that was– I mean, it’s
a classic two step. I mean, I also think BP has done very, very well
rehabilitating itself. I mean, thanks largely to flooding the media
with all kinds of goodies and a lot of advertising money. And we’re
supposed to feel good about BP again.

COMMERCIAL NARRATOR: Two years ago, the people of BP made a commitment
to the gulf and every day since we’ve worked hard to keep it. BP has
paid over twenty three billion dollars to help people and businesses
who were affected, and to cover cleanup costs. Today the beaches and
gulf are open for everyone to enjoy.

BILL MOYERS: And what’s the moral that you– we draw from that story?
About this town?

MARK LEIBOVICH: About this town, is– well, first of all, when there’s
a problem, there is a lot of money to be made in this town. And, look,
it’s another example of Washington doing very, very, very well.

BILL MOYERS Let’s look at Jack Quinn and Ed Gillespie

MARK LEIBOVICH: Jack Quinn is the White House counsel under Bill
Clinton. He went onto cable a lot and defended the president during a
lot of his campaign finance problems during his two terms. He met Ed
Gillespie, who was then a Republican operative in green rooms. They
had this green room friendship. People become friends. And in Ed and
Jack’s case, they went into business together. They started Quinn
Gillespie, the first real major sort of bipartisan lobbying firm.

BILL MOYERS: One stop lobbying.

MARK LEIBOVICH: One stop lobbying. You want to deal with Republicans,
you want to get to Republicans, you go here. You want to get to
Democrats, you go here. They founded them so they– their firm’s
founded in 2000. Jack Quinn got into some trouble in 2001 after he
successfully lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon his law client, Marc Rich.

BILL MOYERS: Fugitive.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Fugitive Marc Rich. There was a big to-do then. Jack
was big time in the barrel. He’s hauled before Congress. He feels like
he’s being looked at in restaurants. And Ed Gillespie said, “Look,
Jack, in a few months everyone’s going to forget about this and all
they’re going to remember about you and this incident is that you got
something big done.” And sure enough– you know, Jack did a good job
for his client. The outrage dissipated. And the firm– the lobbying
firm thrived with the rest of the industry.

BILL MOYERS: Four years later, they sold out for $40 million. Now how
do they make that much money in four years and the talent they bring
is that they’re creatures of Washington?

MARK LEIBOVICH: That’s a very, very, very valuable commodity. I mean,
if you can sell yourself as someone who knows how Washington works,
someone who has these relationships, someone who can get on the phone
and get the president of the United States to pardon, you know, your
fugitive client, that’s a very, very marketable commodity. I mean, if
you see– if you are seen as someone who knows how this town works,
someone who is a usual suspect in this town, you can dine out for
years. That’s why no one leaves.

BILL MOYERS You once asked the Democrat Jack Quinn what appealed to
him about the Republican Ed Gillespie, who became his partner when
they first started bonding. And he answered?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, =80=9CEd got the joke.’

BILL MOYERS: What’s the joke?

MARK LEIBOVICH: That’s what I said. I said, “Jack, what’s the joke?’
And he said, “The joke is that, well, we’re all patriots.” And I
thought that that was both– it was some mix of sarcasm, contempt,
glibness– I don’t know. It was a fascinating answer.

BILL MOYERS: You reported here, that `over the last dozen years
corporate America, much of it Wall Street, has triple the amount of
money it spent on lobbying and public affairs in DC,’ because, and I’m
quoting you, =80=9Chave figured out that despite the exorbitant calls
to hiring lobbyists, the ability to shape or tweak or kill even the
tiniest legislative loophole can be worth tens of millions of
dollars.”

MARK LEIBOVICH: First of all, there’s extravagant waste in the private
sector of Washington if you go to some of these lobbying offices and
parties and what they’re billing people. I mean, it looks like an
incredible racket. In fact, these companies are getting what they pay
for. I mean, Tony Podesta we talked about before, a Democratic
lobbyist, talked about how great it is that laws are so complicated
now. The context was I think it was Dodd-Frank or it might have been
in health care, there are these tiny little loopholes. They go on for
thousands of pages. And if you can be a lobbyist or a lawyer at a firm
who can understand this much and you’re getting paid, you know, tens
of millions of dollars, but you’re probably saving your clients, you
know, hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes more. So it’s very
cost effective. I mean, the complete arcaneness of this world is
again, very, very good for business.

BILL MOYERS: Let’s quickly run through some of the roll call of
influence peddlers that you write about. Billy Tauzin.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Billy Tauzin was a former Democrat, became a
Republican congressman. Went on to become the head of the– one of the
top pharmaceutical lobbies in the country

BILL MOYERS: After, in the House, overseeing the drug industry,
chairing the committee that oversaw the drug industry. And he was
crucial in passing the Medicare prescription bill, which has meant
billions in profits for the drug companies. Then he resigned, as you
say, ran the pharmaceuticals lobbying arm in Washington. And in 2010,
according to you, made $11.6 million. Steve Kroft and `60 Minutes’ did
an exposé of him.

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: I mean, this doesn’t look good. When you
push this bill through that produces a windfall for the drug
companies, and then a short time later you go to work for the drug
lobby at a salary of $2 million.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: There’s nothing I could have done in my
life after leaving Congress that I didn’t have some impact on after 25
years in Congress. If that looks bad to you, have at it. That’s the
truth.

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: In fairness to Billy Tauzin and former
Medicare chief Tom Scully, they weren’t the only public officials
involved with the prescription drug bill who later went to work for
the pharmaceutical industry. Just before the vote, Tauzin cited the
people who had been most helpful in getting in passed.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: I specifically want to thank the staffs
and committees from Ways and Means. John McManus that did such a great
job.

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: Within a few months McManus left Congress
and started his own lobbying firm. Among his new clients were PhRMA,
Pfizer, Lilly and Merck.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: From a majority side of the finance
committee, Linda Fishman-

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: Fishman left to become a lobbyist with the
drug manufacturer Amgen.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: Not the least of all but the energy and
commerce committee staff who toiled so hard for us – chief of staff
Pat Morrissey.

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: Morrissey took a job lobbying for drug
companies Novartis and Hoffman-LaRoche.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: And Jeremy Allen.

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: He went to Johnson and Johnson.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: Kathleen Weldon and Jim Barnett.

STEVE KROFT on 60 minutes: She went to lobby for Biogen, a biotech
company. He left to lobby for Hoffman-LaRoche.

BILLY TAUZIN on 60 minutes: They did a marvelous job for this house
and we owe them a debt. Thank you all.

MARK LEIBOVICH: We owe them all right. Wow. Yeah, I mean, this
happens– it happens with every bill. I mean, I think– what was
striking about that is Congressman Tauzin actually sort of– if we
sent a resume out on all of their behalf, by sort of doing a roll call
in his remarks. But look, I mean, that– the Steve Kroft piece was
stunning in that I think he caught Tauzin just, oddly flat-footed. I
mean, I think we’ve seen in reading his face, he seemed almost
flat-footed that the question would be asked.
I mean, no one is really going to burn any bridges. I mean, it’s like
one big bridge, in some ways. And look Jack Abramoff is a name that
actually has not come up here. He’s the picture of modern disgrace in
Washington, right? The disgraced lobbyist.
One of the many books I read in preparing this book was his memoir,
which he wrote, I think, largely I don’t know if he wrote it in
prison. But I think a lot of it was probably derived from his
ruminations in prison. He told about how he knew as a lobbyists, he
would have all these relationships with people on the Hill, people in
the White House, people-elected officials.
And at a certain point, they would say, “Hey, you know what
Congressman X? Or you know what, Staffer X? You’re really good at
this. When you’re done– have you thought about what you’re going to
do when you leave the Hill?” And they’d say, “Well, not really.” Or
they would just sort of leave the question open. And Jack Abramoff
said, “I knew that when I could ask that question, I owned him.”
Because there’s a preemptive bribe there.
It’s– you know, “You’re going to be making maybe a million dollars at
my lobbying firm, if you answer this question correctly and you act
correctly.” I mean, in your office, if you can help us. If you can
maintain this friendship for as long as you’re in power. I mean– when
you see Peter Orszag going to Citigroup, when you see Jake Seiwert
going to Goldman, when you see Geoff Morrell going to BP, it does sort
of beg the question, “Who were they working for when they were at the
Pentagon, at the OMB, at the Treasury Department?” I mean, you just
sort of wonder where their mind is.

BILL MOYERS Trent Lott. You say he’s the he’s the archetype of the age
of the former. What’s a former?

MARK LEIBOVICH: A former is a former office holder, a former senator,
a former congressman, a former White House deputy chief of staff, or
whatever. I mean, the line I have in the book is that, “Formers stick
to Washington like melted cheese on a gold plated toaster.” They don’t
go home anymore. They talk about how much they hate Washington, but
they settle in here– quite comfortably. And Trent Lott was the Senate
majority leader– you know, very powerful Republican. He kind of
abruptly retired in 2007 I think, went into business with John Breaux,
a Democratic senator. He was a long time senator from Louisiana. As a
member of Congress, Breaux said that his vote– someone called him a
cheap whore and he said, “I’m not that cheap.” And he also said, “My
vote cannot be bought. It can be rented.” Anyway, Trent Lott–

BILL MOYERS: So you’ve got the Republican Lott and the Democratic
Breaux–

MARK LEIBOVICH: Demo-another–

BILL MOYERS: –creating a boutique lobby firm.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yeah, although they eventually were absorbed into
Patton Boggs which is, you know, one of the bigger lobbying firms in
town–

BILL MOYERS: Tommy Boggs, son of the former speaker, Democratic
majority leader, Hale Boggs, who’s–

MARK LEIBOVICH: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: –one of the most– well, arguably the most powerful
lobbyist firm in Washington.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Or it has been for many, many years. But anyway, so
Trent Lott and John Breaux have been very, very successful in the last
five, six years as lobbyists. Trent Lott, a pretty candid guy. He
talked about how much he hates Washington. I said, “So why do you
stay?” and he looked at me like I was crazy, and he said, “Well,
because this is where all the problems are, but this is where all the
money is.’ I mean, this is what keeps people here. And it’s true. No
one leaves anymore.

BILL MOYERS: Richard Gephardt.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Richard Gephardt, former House majority
leader. Two-time presidential candidate. A hero to organized labor.

BILL MOYERS: Son of a teamster.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Son of a teamster, milk truck driver. Gave some of the
most impassioned campaign rallies I’ve ever seen in places like Iowa
and–

BILL MOYERS: For working people.

MARK LEIBOVICH: For working people. I mean, he seemed like the real
deal. He became a lobbyist, like a lot of members of Congress do. And
he since has worked for a lot of corporations.

BILL MOYERS: Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa, I get from your book.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yeah. I mean, again, many of them not terribly
friendly to organized labor.

BILL MOYERS: In Congress, as you say, he fought for labor. But then he
went to work for Spirit Aero Systems, overseeing a tough anti-union
campaign. And then in the House he had supported a resolution
condemning the Armenian genocide of 1915. When he left Congress he was
paid about $70,000 a month by the Turkish government to oppose the
resolution?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yeah. I mean, I guess the word, “genocide” goes down a
little easier at those rates, right I mean, I don’t see any shame
there. I don’t– again, he’s allowed to change his mind for money. I’m
allowed to be outraged.

BILL MOYERS: Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yeah, Evan Bayh was this, you know, two term
senator. He retired very, very extravagantly in the pages of “The New
York Times” about how Washington is broke and how he was tired of all
the yelling matches and partisanship and how nothing gets done. And he
wanted to get into an honorable line of work. And a lot of his
colleagues were not happy with this description, but also were rolling
his eyes because they were, like, “Where was that outrage when you
were in office?”
And one of his colleagues said, “Well, that’s the most effective
speech he’s given, you know, in eight years here, or in 12 years
here.” He immediately joined Fox News, he joined the Chamber of
Commerce. I mean, this is someone who was a runner up to be President
Obama’s running mate.

MARK LEIBOVICH: He and Andy Card, the White House chief of staff under
President Bush, they sort of did a dog and pony act in which they
would go out in the country on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and–

BILL MOYERS: Which is the biggest business lobby–

MARK LEIBOVICH: Biggest business lobby in Washington absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: In Washington.

MARK LEIBOVICH: A big thorn in the side of this White House. And have,
you know, been giving a lot of speeches sort of– in support of that
agenda.

BILL MOYERS: In your book you quote one journalist calling Bayh, `the
perfectly representative face for the rotted Washington
establishment.” Another of your colleagues said he was “Acting to
entrench the culture of narcissism and hypocrisy that’s killing the
United States Congress.” Another describes him `practically a
caricature of what a sell-out looks like.’ I would take from your book
that you don’t think those depictions are too harsh.

MARK LEIBOVICH: No, not at all. I think it’s true. Look, I mean, you
don’t have to– I mean, I just sort of lay out the examples. I lay out
his words. I mean, again, he was so sanctimonious in his departure.

EVAN BAYH: Can we not remember we are “one nation under God” with a
common heritage and a common destiny? Let us no longer be divided into
“red” states and “blue” states but reunite once more as fifty red,
white, and blue states. As the civil rights leader once reminded us:
“we may have arrived on these shores in different ships, but we are
all in the same boat now.”[…]
So my friends, the time has come for the sons and daughters of Lincoln
and the heirs of Jefferson and Jackson to no longer wage war upon each
other but to instead renew the struggle against the ancient enemies of
man: ignorance, poverty and disease. That is why we are here. That is
why.

MARK LEIBOVICH: He was so disgusted with Washington. And, of course,
he stayed. And there are all these examples of what he has gone on to
do. So, look, it all speaks for itself. I mean, you can– it’s nice
that there are commentators who can put a fine a point– or a finer
point on it. But this is all out there.

BILL MOYERS: Chris Dodd, former Peace Corps volunteer.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Chris Dodd, very nice guy, very fun-loving guy. I
mean, very sort of, you know, outspoken liberal. He was– he had this
great legislative last hurrah in 2010, where he– you know, he
coauthored Dodd-Frank. He was one of the chief engineers of the health
care bill. I remember talking to him when he announced he wasn’t going
to run. He got in some trouble– was very, very unpopular back in
Connecticut. He got in some trouble with a mortgage broker.

BILL MOYERS: He took a loan, I think, from Countrywide–

MARK LEIBOVICH: Countrywide.

BILL MOYERS: –in the housing–

MARK LEIBOVICH: In the housing–

BILL MOYERS: –bubble.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Right, at a time when he was, you know, presumably,
you know, chairman of the banking committee could have been very
involved in that. But also was running for president in a fairly
quixotic–

BILL MOYERS: With a lot of money from–

MARK LEIBOVICH: A lot of money from Wall Street. You know, and he
basically decamped to Iowa for a few months in 2008. Chris Dodd, I
remember having lunch with him in the Senate dining room and saying,
“So what are you going to do now?” And it was a triumphant moment. And
he– I mean, because he– these bills were actually going to pass.
And he said– “Oh, boy, the possibilities are endless. I mean, I could
be a college president. I might go out to work for some startup. I
might rejoin the Peace Corps.” I mean, he had this look of
possibility. And I said, “So you’re not going to lobby, right?” And he
said, “Oh no, no, no, take that off the table right, right now.” And
he is now head of one of the most powerful lobbies in town, the Motion
Pictures Association of America. You know, he would say that, “Well,
I’m not registered to lobby, technically.” And it’s true. But he also
oversees a staff of lobbyists. And the chapter about that is– I talk
about just the institutionalization of being part of the political
class.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think he lied to you?

MARK LEIBOVICH: He would say that his thinking evolved. He would– I
don’t think he– I don’t know. What do you call it? It turned out not
to be true. I mean, he– look, it’s disappointing. I mean, I have to
say that as someone who is looking for someone to level with him.

BILL MOYERS: The official language in Washington is fraudulent
language. It’s the language of spin, marketing, P.R.

MARK LEIBOVICH: It’s not how human beings talk to each other. But
yeah, no, it’s– people don’t rec– you become very anesthetized. And
Washington is a huge, huge dome of anesthesia. People don’t fully know
just, again, the B.S. that is just part of the day to day
transaction. And again, it’s hard to realize when you’re living
there. I mean, I think Bob Bennett, the senator from Utah, he was
voted out.

BILL MOYERS: He lost to the Tea Party candidate.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Tea Party guy. He, I think, was– someone said, “So
you’re going to cash in.” He goes, “I’m entitled to make a living.”
And that’s– look, it’s what they do.

BILL MOYERS: You write about– you write about Anita Dunn. Tell me
about Anita Dunn.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Anita Dunn is a long-time Democratic operative. She
was one of the top aides for President Obama’s ’08 campaign. She was
the communications director for a time in the White House. Very, very
sharp woman.

BILL MOYERS: As you say, Anita Dunn helped Michelle Obama set up her
`Let’s Move’ program to stop obesity. I’m almost quoting you verbatim.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yep, sure.

BILL MOYERS: Then she signs on as a consultant to the food
manufacturing and media firms trying to block restrictions on sugary
foods targeting children. Her husband, by the way, and this is, of
course, incidental I’m sure, happened to be the president’s White
House council.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Certainly Anita Dunn has benefited greatly from a
perception of her being still a figure with ties to the White House,
whether it’s her husband who’s now the former White House council. But
someone who has all kinds of friends there. Who’s on the phone there
all the time. I mean, that has to be a boon to her corporate clients.

BILL MOYERS: You talk about President Obama and his campaign and his
opposition to the revolving door. Let me play you an excerpt from one
of his speeches.

BARACK OBAMA: But the American people deserve more than simply an
assurance that those who are coming to Washington will serve their
interests. They also deserve to know that there are rules on the books
to keep it that way. They deserve a government that is truly of, by,
and for the people. As I often said during the campaign, we need to
make the White House the people’s house. And we need to close the
revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and
lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their
own interests over the interests of the American people when they
leave.

BILL MOYERS: And what happened?

MARK LEIBOVICH: They have put this law in place, “We won’t have
lobbyists in the White House.” They kept making exceptions. They–
there have been a number of people who they have waived that rule
for. But ultimately, I think what’s happened is more on the other
end. You said people leaving the White House to go right to K
Street. You’ve had people leaving the White House going right to
Goldman Sachs, going right to BP, going right to Citigroup. I mean,
some of the biggest corporate nemeses in this administration in the
first term are now being staffed at the highest levels by people who
were staffing the Obama administration at the highest–

BILL MOYERS: Peter Orszag, who was Obama’s–

MARK LEIBOVICH: –director of management and budget director.

BILL MOYERS: Now at Citi.

MARK LEIBOVICH: High level at Citi. Jake Siewert who was a chief
counselor to Tim Geithner, secretary of treasury– they were doing all
kinds of battle with Goldman Sachs during the first term, especially
after the financial crisis. Jake is now the head of communications for
Goldman Sachs. I mean, you–

BILL MOYERS: And so many of them have a connection to someone else who
figures prominent in your book, Robert Rubin.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yeah, Robert Rubin–

BILL MOYERS: Was Clinton’s treasury secretary.

MARK LEIBOVICH: There’s always been a symbiosis between Wall Street
and Washington to some degree. But I think the Clinton Era introduced
a whole new level of magnitude to this. And Bob Rubin, who was the
sort of storied head of Goldman Sachs for many years, coming to take
the reins of treasury was really– I mean, he was a real guru. And
brought a lot of protégés, Larry Summers being the biggest example, to
town. Tim Geithner being another one. And yeah, and then, you know,
the economy crashes, the banks crash. I mean, Robert Rubin gets a
great deal of blame. I mean, Bill Clinton himself did a mea culpa on
Robert Rubin.

BILL MOYERS: On ABC News.

MARK LEIBOVICH: On ABC News, on George Stephanopoulos.

BILL MOYERS: Rubin had been a force in killing Glass-Steagall, which
was the firewall between commercial banks and investment banks.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Investment banks.

BILL MOYERS: And he was a big supporter of derivatives, deregulation.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: And all that contributed to the fiscal crisis. After he
left the Treasury Department, he went to Citi.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Went back to Citi–

MARK LEIBOVICH: –Citi.

BILL MOYERS: You say he made $126 million in nine years.

MARK LEIBOVICH: No, he did. No, he did very, very, very well. And–

BILL MOYERS: And you called Rubin “The primest of movers of in the
modern marriage of politics and wealth creation.”

MARK LEIBOVICH: He was the ambassador to the Clinton wealth machine. I
mean, even– I mean, you had people like Rahm Emmanuel, who was a
mid-level White House, you know, operative in the Clinton White House,
who, was able to go to Wasserstein Perella and make, you know, $16.2
or $16 point something million.

BILL MOYERS: $18 million in two years.

MARK LEIBOVICH: And then before he went back to become a public
servant again and run for Congress. But yeah, Bob Rubin brought this
whole generation of Wall Street people to Washington. Then he brought
them back from Washington to Wall Street, greatly enriched. And look,
he’s a hero to a lot of people on Wall Street. He was a hero to a lot
of people in Washington. And again, I think Bill Clinton more than
anyone in the last, you know, few decades has sort of engineered this
relationship.

BILL MOYERS: When we come back, Mark Leibovich and I will talk about
how the Washington press corps has been seduced by the power game, but
first, this is pledge time on Public Television. We’re taking a short
break so you can show your support for the programming you see right
here on this station.

BILL MOYERS: For those of you still with us… For all its greed and
power madness, Washington’s still a place where citizens can go and
make a noise. Here’s a story from earlier this year about a group of
restaurant workers who barely survive on minimal salaries and customer
tips. They marched on Capitol Hill for a fair wage and a square
deal…
For the past 22 years, these workers have been stuck at a federal
minimum wage of $2.13 an hour. At the head of the march, Saru
Jayaraman.

PROTESTERS: Roc United!

BILL MOYERS : The organization she co-founded, Restaurant
Opportunities Centers United, is fighting to improve wages and working
conditions for the people who cook and serve the food we eat at
restaurants and then clean up when we’re done.
Saru Jayaraman’s new book Behind the Kitchen Door is an insider’s
expose of what it’s really like to work at the lowest rungs of the
restaurant industry.

SARU JAYARAMAN: There are actually now over 10 million restaurant
workers in the United States. So seven of the ten lowest paying jobs
in America are restaurant jobs, and the two absolute lowest paying
jobs in America are restaurant: dishwashers and fast food preps and
cooks are the two absolute lowest paying jobs in America. These
workers earn poverty wages because the minimum wage for tipped workers
at the federal level has been frozen for 22 years at $2.13 an hour,
and it’s the reason that food servers use food stamps at double the
rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce, and have a poverty rate of
three times the rest of the U.S. workforce.
We got to this place because of the power of the National Restaurant
Association; we call it the other NRA. They’ve been named the tenth
most powerful lobbying group in Congress and back in 1996 when Herman
Cain was the head of the National Restaurant Association, he struck a
deal with Congress saying that, `We will not oppose the overall
minimum wage continuing to rise as long as the minimum wage for tipped
workers stays frozen forever,’ and so it has for the last 22 years.
Imagine your average server in an IHOP in Texas earning $2.13 an hour,
graveyard shift, no tips. The company’s supposed to make up the
difference between $2.13 and $7.25 but time and time again that
doesn’t happen.
And when slow night happens and you don’t earn anything or very little
in tips you often can’t pay the rent. And I guarantee you in every
restaurant in America there’s at least one person who’s on the verge
of homelessness or being evicted or going through some kind of
instability. It’s an incredible irony that the people that who put
food on our tables use food stamps at twice the rate of the rest of
the US workforce. Meaning that the people who put food on our tables
can’t afford to put food on their own family’s tables. The other key
issue that we find that workers face is the lack of paid sick days and
healthcare benefits; two-thirds of all workers report cooking,
preparing, and serving food when they’re ill, with the flu or other
sicknesses. And with a wage as little as $2.13, so reliant on tips for
their wages, these workers simply cannot afford to take a day off when
sick, let alone risk losing their jobs. The majority of workers are
adults; many are parents and single parents, single mothers, using the
restaurant job as their main source of income. We partner with more
than a hundred small business owners around the country who are doing
the right thing, providing good, decent wages, better working
conditions, paid sick days, benefits, opportunities for
advancement. So I think that’s the first thing I would say to a small
business owner is, `Look, there are tons of people who are already
doing it. We’re here to help you, they’re here to help you try this
new way of doing business.’

BILL MOYERS: Acting on that democratic impulse, Saru Jayaraman and the
protesting workers march from Capitol Hill to the Capital Grille
steakhouse, owned by one of the biggest restaurant chains in
America…

SARU JAYARAMAN: Eighty-six thousand customers of yours have signed a
petition calling on you to pay a minimum of at least five dollars an
hour to your workers cause $2.13 is just not enough to live on. So
here you go.

CAPITAL GRILLE MANAGER: Thank you.

SARU JAYARAMAN: Thank you.

NARRATOR: We now return to Moyers & Company…

BILL MOYERS: Let’s get to the press. You write, “Never before has the
so-called permanent establishment of Washington included so many
people in the media.” And you write, “The Washington press puts the
`me’ in `media.” How so?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Look, I mean, first of all, just the rise in new media
has given everyone a voice. I mean, the rise of cable has given
everyone a face. I mean, it’s never been easier to become a media
celebrity. And I think punditry has replaced reporting as the gold
standard of my profession. I mean, there– the media is everywhere in
Washington. I mean, I think the White House Correspondent’s Dinner is
a classic example of how Washington, you know, rewards being famous,
being on TV, being a brand– more than anything.

BILL MOYERS: Your descriptions of the White House Correspondent’s
Association Dinner, the annual dinner are fabulous in the book. The
dinner’s sold out every table since 1993, at $2,500 a pop?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yeah, but I mean, even the greater outrage is that
there’s– it now goes over five days. You have probably about two
dozen pre-parties and after parties. You probably have tens of
millions of dollars, some funded by corporations, in entertainment, in
sort of people sucking up to everyone else, and food and musical acts
and so forth.
Because, of course, you know, a single banquet is no longer sufficient
to celebrate the accomplishments of the Washington media. Tom Brokaw
who has become a real activist against the White House Correspondent’s
Dinner said that it sends the message that it’s all about the people
on the screen. It’s all about the media. Which I think to some degree
is true. I mean, the media is feeling great about itself. The media is
as rich as any other part of the economy. And I think the
Correspondent’s Dinner is a classic example of this.

BILL MOYERS: Have you attended one?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I have, although not since 1996, because the `New York
Times’ stopped letting us go.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

MARK LEIBOVICH: They thought it was too– Dean Baquet, who’s now the
managing editor of `The Times’, he was the Washington bureau chief of
`The Times.’ I think it was in 2007, actually, declared that this is
too cozy. He didn’t like the message it sent. He would prefer that we
stop going. I thought it was a great decision.

BILL MOYERS: Describe the dinner to me.

MARK LEIBOVICH: It’s just this room full of tuxedoed people.
A lot of Hollywood celebrities come in. A lot of people talk about,
you know, the good that the press does. But again, it’s an
extravaganza that continues, that it becomes the ultimate bubble
world, the ultimate example of decadence in Washington that people
know intuitively is wrong, but have no either will or ability to stop
it.

REPORTER 1 at the WHCD: This is a big night in Washington. Anyone
whose anybody is here. And the key question for everyone in Washington
is `What are you wearing?’

REPORTER 2 at the WHCD: So you’ve got the politicians, the
journalists, and plenty of celebrities thrown in between. I had a
Katie Perry sighting, saw Bradley Cooper too.

REPORTER 1 at the WHCD: Is there anyone you’re excited to meet
tonight?

MICHAEL STEELE at the WHCD: Everyone actually. I just came here with
my buddy Chris Tucker it was good to see him.

REPORTER 1 at the WHCD: You know Michael Steele?

CHRIS TUCKER at the WHCD: Michael Steele? Who is Michael Steele?

REPORTER 3 at the WHCD: And who are you wearing tonight?

CELEBRITY at the WHCD: Badgely Mischka.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS at the WHCD: You’re asking people what they’re
wearing and all that….

REPORTER 1 at the WHCD: Are there any political conversations you’re
going to have at all?

KIM KARDASHIAN at the WHCD: Sure we’re having one now aren’t we?

ROBERT GIBBS at the WHCD: Is this still not the craziest thing ever?
When did this get to be like this?

BARACK OBAMA at the WHCD: Thank you everybody. How do you like my new
entrance music?

MARK LEIBOVICH: The problem is excess. To some degree, it is perfectly
emblematic of the reality distortion field inside of Washington, of
just having no sense whatsoever. And what I think is sort of striking
is this year Kevin Spacey is the star of `House of Cards,’ which is
not a very flattering picture of Washington. And Julia Louis-Dreyfus,
who is the star of `Veep,’ which is this very, very funny HBO show.

BILL MOYERS: About the vice president.

MARK LEIBOVICH: About the vice presidency, neither of which paint
Washington in a flattering light. They both showed up to the
dinner. They went to the big after party sponsored by Vanity Fair and
Bloomberg. And they were both swarmed. Everyone was like, “Oh, we have
to get our picture taken with Kevin Spacey and with Julia
Louis-Dreyfus, who, I mean, ultimately, paint a hideous portrait of
how Washington works. And Washington at its most grotesque and
perverse. And yet, that’s what we’re celebrating. And again, you do
sort of pinch yourself after one. It’s like, “What are we celebrating
here?”

BILL MOYERS: There’s a sequence in Netflix’s `House of Cards’, where
some of Washington’s best-known journalists are playing themselves in
a fantasy world.

GEORGE STEPHENOPOLOUS on House of Cards: Just before we came on the
air, I received an advance copy of an article that’s going to be in
tomorrow’s Washington Herald – it’s front page, and it was written by
Zoe Barnes. And in it she quotes an editorial that ran in the Williams
College Register when you were editor back in September 1978 which
called the Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank quote,
an illegal occupation. […]

JOHN KING on House of Cards: Quoting a source close to the President
as saying that Katherine Durant will likely be the new nominee for
Secretary of State after Michael Kern’s withdrawal.[…]

CANDY CROWLEY on House of Cards: Congressmen Frank Underwood says he
got quote schooled by AFT spokesman and chief strategist Martin
Spinella during a debate last night on this network. In the past 24
hours reruns of the gaff have played non-stop on tv news programs and
the internet. […]

BILL MOYERS: Does it say something to you that prominent journalists
are willing to erase the line between reality and fiction?

MARK LEIBOVICH: That if you look at something like `House of Cards,’
if you look at something like the Correspondent’s Dinner, where you
have Hollywood and Washington merging and you have kind of a joined
mind, a joined fame machine. You realize that the lines might not be
that drawn to begin with. It– in any mind. I mean, I think one of the
things– there’s a scene at the end of this book in which a member of
the campaign team from 2012 for President Obama said, “After a while
it just seemed like everyone was thinking about who was going to play
them in the next version of `Game Change’,” which is this campaign
book that was written by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann about the
2008 campaign, best-seller. And again, that sort of goes to the larger
cinematic sense that people have with themselves here. There’s this
sense of preening, a sense of, “Who’s going to play me in the movie?
Will I get a cameo playing myself in the movie?” as people in the
`Game Change’ movie did. That’s another scene in here. And again, it’s
a sort of blame– it’s a sort of blurring of the larger class of fame,
of really the ruling class in the public perception game. That I think
is as much a part of this decadence as really anything else.

BILL MOYERS: I was surprised when I read the book, because I have
followed your reporting. And you were reporting good stories,
anecdotal stories, and fact-driven stories. But they didn’t seem to
have the narrative arc that emerges in this. Was that something you
came to in the course of writing it or in the course of reporting? How
did that come about?

MARK LEIBOVICH: It became a moment. And it– and it did occur to me
in– in being exposed to this that the political class that I’m
writing about has reached some kind of critical mass in the 21st
century. I think there’s something going on in Washington that needed
to be called out.

BILL MOYERS: And the moment you talk about?

MARK LEIBOVICH: The moment I talk about. Again, I don’t think the can
be sustained. And I think it’s indecent. I think it is not how
Americans want their government and their capital city to be. I think
in some ways– and I always sort of cower under this– this claim when
people ask me for prescriptions. But I think in some ways– I mean,
I’m holding a mirror to a culture. It is a culture that people only
know around the edges. I wanted to take it sort of full on, in all its
components, including the media, and hope to paint a picture that will
stand as something that is lasting for this era.

BILL MOYERS: Is it conceivable to you that one, two, three, or four
more people in your book might say, “Wait a minute, this is
shameful. And they can’t change it out there, because we are
impenetrable. So I’m going to stand up. And we’re going to change it
from within.”

MARK LEIBOVICH: I mean, look, I mean, there are a lot of good people
in Washington. I mean, it sounds contradictory given a lot of what
we’ve talked about. But there are people who– a lot of people who
especially when they’re young or when they were young, they came from
a place of decency. They came from a place of hope. And that doesn’t
completely go away, right? So-look, I wrote a book– and I’m speaking
as a journalist– who– that I think in probably some level was a
product of disgust, my own disgust. Maybe even there was a level of
unconscious desire to check myself before finding myself too deep in
the club, too much a part of this world. And, I mean, so look, I mean,
I absolutely love– would love this book to be a source of shame, of
self-reflection. But I think– I am willing to start with
discomfort. If this is a source of discomfort, I’m very happy with
that, too.

BILL MOYERS: Suppose this culture in Washington is more representative
of the country today than you want to acknowledge. What if Washington
has become the Wall Street way, the Las Vegas way, the Silicon Valley
way?

MARK LEIBOVICH: It it’s a classic chicken/egg question. What we have
now in the population is a level of dissonance, right? It’s a level of
disgust that is parallel to– you know, maybe some indifference. But
that is also parallel to your own role in reelecting your congressman,
your own role in watching these shouting matches on cable, your own
role in perpetuating this system, and being in– being transfixed by
these ads. So yes, I mean, I think that this dissonance is something
that lives in a very, very distilled way inside our nation’s
capital. And I think it’s acted out by these– by these real-life
players, who are in a very writ-large way experiencing both the
American dream and the American nightmare. And that is something that
I think makes this town, but also the nation’s capital, at this
moment, a very, very palpable place to watch this disconnect play
out. And again, it’s a lot to get your head around. I do think it is
worth a discussion. And frankly a smarter discussion than many people
in Washington are willing to have.

BILL MOYERS: This Town is the place to begin. Mark Leibovich, thank
you very much for the book. And thank you very much for being here.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Thank you, Bill.

BILL MOYERS: That’s it for this week. I’m Bill Moyers, see you next
time.

This week’s show () originally aired on
August 20, 2013.

Mark Leibovich covers Washington, DC, as chief national correspondent
for The New York Times Magazine. In his new book, “This Town,” he
writes about the city’s bipartisan lust for power, cash and
notoriety. It’s the story of how Washington became an occupied city;
its hold on reality distorted by greed and ambition. Leibovich pulls
no punches, names names, and reveals the movers, the shakers and the
lucrative deals they make – all in the name of crony capitalism.

From: Baghdasarian

http://vimeo.com/79940704
http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-americas-gilded-capital