8 Burst results for "Peter Emphasize"

"peter emphasize" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

10:50 min | 5 months ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Transmission of the virus in order to stop a run on our hospitals to protect vulnerable populations in our missed. That's older people. People with serious. Chronicle medical conditions like heart disease lung disease and diabetes. We all have people in our lives that are vulnerable to this. The clear steps to take are canceling. Large-scale events and reducing travel reducing. Going out even going to restaurants or events. We need to take this all deadly seriously. You can go read the warnings from Italians who said we did not take the seriously enough and now we're in it. That's their message to us. That message however is not being adequately communicated at all by the most powerful person in the country. Someone Louise hearing from later tonight. A man who insists on propagating disinformation and meeting with CEOS to discuss an economic problem. But the right message is being communicated by people administration like Dr Falcon by former trump administration officials like Tombo sir and former. Fdic achieved Scott Gottlieb but governors like Washington's Jay Inslee who today announced they are shutting down events over two hundred and fifty people. The reality is we have to take dramatic steps and we are only now at this late hour starting to see those steps and action for more on where we stand right now. Joined by. Dr Ezekiel Emanuel former Obama. White House Health Policy Advisor. He's Vice Provost Global Initiatives University of Pennsylvania and Dr Peter Hotels Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine Doctor Manual. When we start with you. Where do you see us right now? Are we doing enough in terms of large scale social disruption and changes to slow the transmission of this epidemic? So first of all. I've been saying for several weeks now that it's going to get worse before it gets better. Parsley it's GonNa get worse because we have testing. That's just going to show us how prevalent the illness is. It's also getting worse because we know we have more community acquired infections as I mentioned to someone today. You know one week ago. We weren't even talking about new Rochelle and now new. Rochelle is a major topic in New York. And that's a lockdown and if we focus on new Rochelle without thinking about all the other places that this virus is maybe Washington. Dc maybe the suburbs of Baltimore. Who knows where the problem is? We need a more systematic less uneven response. That has to be pretty uniform. Because just 'cause we're seeing it new Rochelle doesn't mean Rochelle's the only place in New York that Scott and that response does have to include things like much more prevalent testing so we really have a handle on who's got it and who doesn't and a really good model is South Korea if you look at their trends you can see that. They're beginning to bend in South Korea. We also do need to inform people. We use the term social distancing like everyone knows what it means. It's not immediately obvious to people what that entails and how much you need to be separate from people explain to what should people know about but a large part of it. You people have come up with all these numbers no more than one hundred people to meet no more. The issue is density. How close are you to people? How easy is it for the droplets to spread? How much are you sort of packed in light sardines or not and that real? I mean that's a physical thing That is really important and I do think we probably need to educate people to minimize the. They're our contact and to stay home more. You can go out where there's no one else if you're going walking in the woods or something or going to a place where there are other people But I do think Restricting how we move around is going to be important I will note that not every but most of the Ivy League schools now for example colleges mine included. We're going online. The second half of the semester is all going to be online. Students aren't going to be in. Dormitories accepts students. That can go back to their home country and still complete the semester. So you are seeing a lot of action. But it's not concerted and that's what it's not systematic and that's what's bothering me Dr Hotels. We've been checking with you throughout the unfolding of the goal pandemic and I'm curious. Are we learning more about the virus itself about the basics about the transmission rate? Which seems to be maybe lower than at first. We thought the fatality rate the incubation period. Where is our knowledge right now about this so the transmission rate still seems to be? Pretty High Dr Fao. She mentioned. It's probably a significantly higher than the influenza as well as the mortality rate. But the you know just to echo and reinforce some of the things zeke Doctor Emmanuel was was saying we've learned a few things from a recent analysis. My colleague Mark Lipchitz sit at Harvard School of Public Health Chan School of Public Health together with a student a doctoral student. Ruan Lee didn't analysis of the Chinese cities in terms of how severe the epidemic is with the extreme example being Wuhan rare nine thousand people wound up in and severely ill with two thousand in the ICU versus city. Like Long Joe where there was only twenty a big difference right and it looked like it's primarily to do to how quickly you got on top of things after sustained community transmission started. So they let it go for six weeks. Before they implemented aggressive control and testing whereas in Guangzhou were the only at twenty cases one week. What's the lesson learned from the United States We're now about three weeks into this in terms of sustained community transmission. We had our first case of community transmission around the end of April so subtract a week before then. So we're getting to the point where because we're not doing adequate diagnostic testing and implementing those very important control measures. That seek pointed out. We're in a situation. Where we could risk being closer to Wuhan and Guangzhou and and we do we. We can't be there so now is a very critical period over the next couple of weeks where we have to be very aggressive about closing down major venues. We just this Houston. Today with the Rodeo was a tough decision but was the right decision that we're going to have to do this all over the country right now and the reason is this because if we miss that opportunity we then have. Our new problem becomes surge capacity hospitals. Where we're not gonNA have enough beds. We're not GONNA have enough into ventilators. We don't want to go in that direction. So now's now czar. Big Schnauzer going to be our last chance. We've already missed that in over the last few weeks. Can I reemphasize something? Peter says which is so in the entire United States. We have about eight hundred thousand hospital beds a little under eight hundred thousand hospital beds. In the entire United States we have under seventy thousand adult intensive care unit. Beds we have about sixty five thousand ventilators with the strategic supply. I've heard that it goes up slightly under one hundred thousand. That's our maximum capacity in the country at the moment if you imagine that even two percent of the population gets the corona virus and we have about six percent who are seriously. Ill GonNa need a respirator. We've exhausted all that supply. Just for those patients. Forget the heart attack patients. Forget the patients who need it for any other reason and I think what Peter said is exactly right we probably have missed two or three turns over the last few weeks where we could have gotten things down and just focusing on the hot spots. Seattle New Rochelle. I think is not. We need a much more systematic countrywide approach so that we don't overwhelm the healthcare system. Which already you know doesn't have that much search capacity in it. Dr Hotels Final Point to you for people that are watching this I. I've struggled with this for the last three weeks right. Communicating in a way that does not induce catastrophe or panic but also is clear eyed about the risks. And I do think it's worth just going back to the distinction between your individual risk you random American one of three hundred thirty million that you will get very sick and need to be hospitalized or may as life threatening illnesses that individual risk for any given random person is probably low in the grand scheme of things and this systemic risk to the society and to the healthcare system which is extremely high at this moment. Is that a fair way of phrasing. It yeah absolutely and also remember. It's it's all about communicating. What our top priorities are in. This is what I've been disappointed about. We've lost a lot of time because of a blanket statements that are not backed by data saying this is contained. This is this is the cold. This is the flu when in fact we know that there are specific groups that are at high risk including older older individuals those with underlying disabilities and our healthcare workers. And so what I've been looking for is at the White House. Press briefings to say. Look these are four. Bit Concerns Right. These are three or four populations That were concerned about This is a why we need to get on top of this very quickly. And here's what we're doing about it and and historically the American people have responded very well to this They understood this three. Bola Zeka as we say. This is not our first Rodeo so so we know how to respond and we just need that clear kind of concise messaging right now. All right. Just had one thing to Chris. Point which is we also do know the ass for any individual. The risk is low except we do know that there are certain people and Peter Emphasize of those who are over sixty or sixty five those who have chronic illness. They are at high risk and what we have done in. This country is aggregate them in nursing homes. Those are most vulnerable people people in nursing and we really have to social distance. There reduced the number of visitors. Probably two zero. Make sure that people are counting up and taking a donning protective equipment so that we don't have that Patriot play just explode with corona virus like it did in Seattle because almost every one of them is really on the verge just like the cruise ships. Good Point -portant point Zeki Manual. Dr Peter Hotels. Thank you both. Next.

Rochelle Peter Emphasize Dr Peter Hotels United States influenza Seattle Washington Scott Gottlieb South Korea Dr Ezekiel Emanuel Dr Peter Hotels Dean Guangzhou Dr Falcon Louise Baltimore New York Fdic Ivy League Dr Fao
Are we doing enough to prevent the spread of COVID-19?

All In with Chris Hayes

09:30 min | 5 months ago

Are we doing enough to prevent the spread of COVID-19?

"Joined by. Dr Ezekiel Emanuel former Obama. White House Health Policy Advisor. He's Vice Provost Global Initiatives University of Pennsylvania and Dr Peter Hotels Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine Doctor Manual. When we start with you. Where do you see us right now? Are we doing enough in terms of large scale social disruption and changes to slow the transmission of this epidemic? So first of all. I've been saying for several weeks now that it's going to get worse before it gets better. Parsley it's GonNa get worse because we have testing. That's just going to show us how prevalent the illness is. It's also getting worse because we know we have more community acquired infections as I mentioned to someone today. You know one week ago. We weren't even talking about new Rochelle and now new. Rochelle is a major topic in New York. And that's a lockdown and if we focus on new Rochelle without thinking about all the other places that this virus is maybe Washington. Dc maybe the suburbs of Baltimore. Who knows where the problem is? We need a more systematic less uneven response. That has to be pretty uniform. Because just 'cause we're seeing it new Rochelle doesn't mean Rochelle's the only place in New York that Scott and that response does have to include things like much more prevalent testing so we really have a handle on who's got it and who doesn't and a really good model is South Korea if you look at their trends you can see that. They're beginning to bend in South Korea. We also do need to inform people. We use the term social distancing like everyone knows what it means. It's not immediately obvious to people what that entails and how much you need to be separate from people explain to what should people know about but a large part of it. You people have come up with all these numbers no more than one hundred people to meet no more. The issue is density. How close are you to people? How easy is it for the droplets to spread? How much are you sort of packed in light sardines or not and that real? I mean that's a physical thing That is really important and I do think we probably need to educate people to minimize the. They're our contact and to stay home more. You can go out where there's no one else if you're going walking in the woods or something or going to a place where there are other people But I do think Restricting how we move around is going to be important I will note that not every but most of the Ivy League schools now for example colleges mine included. We're going online. The second half of the semester is all going to be online. Students aren't going to be in. Dormitories accepts students. That can go back to their home country and still complete the semester. So you are seeing a lot of action. But it's not concerted and that's what it's not systematic and that's what's bothering me Dr Hotels. We've been checking with you throughout the unfolding of the goal pandemic and I'm curious. Are we learning more about the virus itself about the basics about the transmission rate? Which seems to be maybe lower than at first. We thought the fatality rate the incubation period. Where is our knowledge right now about this so the transmission rate still seems to be? Pretty High Dr Fao. She mentioned. It's probably a significantly higher than the influenza as well as the mortality rate. But the you know just to echo and reinforce some of the things zeke Doctor Emmanuel was was saying we've learned a few things from a recent analysis. My colleague Mark Lipchitz sit at Harvard School of Public Health Chan School of Public Health together with a student a doctoral student. Ruan Lee didn't analysis of the Chinese cities in terms of how severe the epidemic is with the extreme example being Wuhan rare nine thousand people wound up in and severely ill with two thousand in the ICU versus city. Like Long Joe where there was only twenty a big difference right and it looked like it's primarily to do to how quickly you got on top of things after sustained community transmission started. So they let it go for six weeks. Before they implemented aggressive control and testing whereas in Guangzhou were the only at twenty cases one week. What's the lesson learned from the United States We're now about three weeks into this in terms of sustained community transmission. We had our first case of community transmission around the end of April so subtract a week before then. So we're getting to the point where because we're not doing adequate diagnostic testing and implementing those very important control measures. That seek pointed out. We're in a situation. Where we could risk being closer to Wuhan and Guangzhou and and we do we. We can't be there so now is a very critical period over the next couple of weeks where we have to be very aggressive about closing down major venues. We just this Houston. Today with the Rodeo was a tough decision but was the right decision that we're going to have to do this all over the country right now and the reason is this because if we miss that opportunity we then have. Our new problem becomes surge capacity hospitals. Where we're not gonNA have enough beds. We're not GONNA have enough into ventilators. We don't want to go in that direction. So now's now czar. Big Schnauzer going to be our last chance. We've already missed that in over the last few weeks. Can I reemphasize something? Peter says which is so in the entire United States. We have about eight hundred thousand hospital beds a little under eight hundred thousand hospital beds. In the entire United States we have under seventy thousand adult intensive care unit. Beds we have about sixty five thousand ventilators with the strategic supply. I've heard that it goes up slightly under one hundred thousand. That's our maximum capacity in the country at the moment if you imagine that even two percent of the population gets the corona virus and we have about six percent who are seriously. Ill GonNa need a respirator. We've exhausted all that supply. Just for those patients. Forget the heart attack patients. Forget the patients who need it for any other reason and I think what Peter said is exactly right we probably have missed two or three turns over the last few weeks where we could have gotten things down and just focusing on the hot spots. Seattle New Rochelle. I think is not. We need a much more systematic countrywide approach so that we don't overwhelm the healthcare system. Which already you know doesn't have that much search capacity in it. Dr Hotels Final Point to you for people that are watching this I. I've struggled with this for the last three weeks right. Communicating in a way that does not induce catastrophe or panic but also is clear eyed about the risks. And I do think it's worth just going back to the distinction between your individual risk you random American one of three hundred thirty million that you will get very sick and need to be hospitalized or may as life threatening illnesses that individual risk for any given random person is probably low in the grand scheme of things and this systemic risk to the society and to the healthcare system which is extremely high at this moment. Is that a fair way of phrasing. It yeah absolutely and also remember. It's it's all about communicating. What our top priorities are in. This is what I've been disappointed about. We've lost a lot of time because of a blanket statements that are not backed by data saying this is contained. This is this is the cold. This is the flu when in fact we know that there are specific groups that are at high risk including older older individuals those with underlying disabilities and our healthcare workers. And so what I've been looking for is at the White House. Press briefings to say. Look these are four. Bit Concerns Right. These are three or four populations That were concerned about This is a why we need to get on top of this very quickly. And here's what we're doing about it and and historically the American people have responded very well to this They understood this three. Bola Zeka as we say. This is not our first Rodeo so so we know how to respond and we just need that clear kind of concise messaging right now. All right. Just had one thing to Chris. Point which is we also do know the ass for any individual. The risk is low except we do know that there are certain people and Peter Emphasize of those who are over sixty or sixty five those who have chronic illness. They are at high risk and what we have done in. This country is aggregate them in nursing homes. Those are most vulnerable people people in nursing and we really have to social distance. There reduced the number of visitors. Probably two zero. Make sure that people are counting up and taking a donning protective equipment so that we don't have that Patriot play just explode with corona virus like it did in Seattle because almost every one of them is really on the verge just like the cruise ships. Good Point -portant point Zeki Manual. Dr Peter Hotels. Thank you

Rochelle Peter Emphasize Dr Peter Hotels United States Influenza Seattle Guangzhou Dr Ezekiel Emanuel Dr Peter Hotels Dean South Korea White House Vice Provost Global Initiative New York Baltimore University Of Pennsylvania Ivy League Dr Fao Policy Advisor Barack Obama
"peter emphasize" Discussed on MyTalk 107.1

MyTalk 107.1

04:41 min | 8 months ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on MyTalk 107.1

"I'm going to Australia rights applies Australian for beer it is Australian for Australia and I want to tell you about a gal by the name of Rachel and her ex boyfriend okay so reach all had a boyfriend and his name was Alistair that wasn't his real name but that's we're gonna call him for the purpose of this story she learned many years ago or at least two or three years ago that he had been murdered buy a of a biker gang and she was devastated but she moved on into the future with her life after you know learning about that greeting that she was two years later with another person and she was decided to go to a local restaurant that she liked okay and she remembered that Alistair is brother worked at that restaurant and so she asked the waiter Hey could you bring the by this person five let's call him Jeff yeah hi Jeff is Jeff working today and the waiter said all known Jeff isn't working but his brother is working she was like weird Jeff's only brother what has my boyfriend Alistair guess what Alistair was working in the restaurant downtown yes turns out he had faked his own death to get out of some serious deaths from okay what yes and like he had faked his own death to like everybody I am like you is still the same disappearance it was still him the but you have it just seems like it's not going to I mean yeah we're gonna recognize you know okay Sir no but he knows so what happened I it turns out that he didn't die it was just him I don't really know if there were any situations that happened but she apparently I don't know I don't really know what ended up happening from it because of this article that just went on to interview people about what it would take to change your identity yeah which I don't think it's fair I just I don't you know I think everybody at some points like I'm just going to disappear I just don't feel like in two thousand nineteen you can ever disappear unless you're going to like the Alaskan bush country and then even there they got the internet you gotta be real committed if you think you're gonna be able to disappear yourself yeah otherwise things like this are going to happen like a living in John's husband even he couldn't disappear yeah he's in Mexico somewhere by the way he she did make a scene at the restaurant that when he did get fired okay so that's good for impersonating someone one I don't know that was where Australia it's Australian for beer it's Australian for Australia Australia okay now we're gonna go to Pittsburgh Pennsylvania and I want to take you to a massage parlor thank you like am I going to get like a sixty minute or ninety minute when everyone actually knows we don't fifteen you can have sixty you can am ninety the tissue a Swedish whatever you want to think don't know that I really ever understand what a Swedish massages I think that's just the regular kind like I like rob who wants that what do you what do you do yeah I guess I just figure you get to tell them how hard you want to know like you you need it really hard and apparently some people over at this particular massage parlor in Pennsylvania also knew that really hard like really hard and I want to take you to Peter's massage is that a Peter massage place well Peters is a place okay I want to tell you about the place it's a massage parlor in Peter's so it appears massage parlor okay now the reason I'm telling you about this massage parlor in Peter's is because at the massage parlour in Peter's emphasized the sizing Peter okay and I don't mean Peter Paul and Mary I mean I thought this story was gonna have a bad.

Australia Rachel Alistair ninety minute sixty minute three years two years
"peter emphasize" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

09:57 min | 1 year ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on KCRW

"Well, there's reason to think that it may not last indefinitely the military focuses on this number closely. They worry about it. But why might it not last? Well for starters. If you disagree gate, you realize it's a super high level of confidence among Republicans and just a moderate high among Democrats. So the average numbers in the sixties or high fifties. But it's propped up by Republican numbers in the nineties and democratic numbers in the low fifties. Also, we do see a demographic or generational shift. That is to say the younger people have less confidence than older people. They also have less personal connections ties family members immediate family members. It's their grandparents who served not their parents. So all of these reasons might point downward, but there's one more that a flag for you. When I started in this business twenty thirty years ago, and I talked about it. I'd say there's two institutions that the public has high degree of confidence the military and the supreme court. I no longer have to say, right? The public confidence in the supreme court has plummeted. Why there's several reasons, but one raining a theory is that the public came to look at the supreme court as a partisan institution. And the institutions that the public dislikes tends to be the ones that are perceived to be partisan congress, obviously a partisan institution. The media perceived to be partisan. The danger is if the military comes to be seen as partisan forgets too closely associated with one party, most likely the Republican party will that cause people to look at the military through a partisan lens if so that could cause public confidence to drop head. Let's step back now to another question of trust and leadership, which is America's role in the world is America, the leader of the international order. Yes. If you look at the last hundred years, that's the defining geopolitical fact of the last century, this is the question of twenty eighteen will American leadership endure, and if I were to summarize the questions for Mark, I would say, I do Americans understand the price of freedom. Secondly, do they understand the benefits of global leadership? Thirdly, do our allies trust us and respect. Us enough to shoulder their load fourth to our adversaries fear us and don't want to cross and then fifth does our government work and those five questions are up for grabs in a way that they haven't been in our professional lifetime though. This didn't just start in two thousand eighteen and apparently didn't just start in two thousand sixteen with the election either. So where do you begin to analyze where this question about American leadership in the world? Well, the Europeans would begin at right after the end of World War Two or actually in the middle of World War Two. They said they had grave doubts about the quality of American leadership. And and if you go back the the things that were arguing about today are the Europeans carrying their load on the one hand is America behaving recklessly like a cowboy. That's what we argued about at the founding of the transatlantic alliance. Indeed, that's the reason for NATO was to corral the Europeans into carrying their load and from the European point of view tied the Americans in so they don't do something reckless like they did. In nineteen nineteen. So what's different? Now. What's different now is all of those arguments have more merit today than they did before. So German shirking on the defense budget is greater today than it's ever been. So President Trump is absolutely right. When he calls out the Europeans that they could be doing more should be doing more. They need to do more. He's right about that. At the same time European complaints about the way, America's conducting diplomacy in the last two years. Those have more merit today than in previous times. I want to go back to I can't remember it was one two or three of your important points to think about going forward. One of those was that Americans understand the price of freedom. Right. Is that really the core issue here that in lesser until Americans have a relationship with what it means to have America in this role the faith in it is never gonna be able to come back in the leadership will never be able to rise. I do think that American self confidence is crucial in the thirties. We shifted to off with academics. Call offshore balancing will stay off shore and let the problems on the continent manage themselves, but then we had to fight our. Way. Onshore literally fight our way on shore on d day in order to stabilize a broken balance of power system and Americans learned at that moment that we can't afford to fight our way back on shore. We need to stay on shore. Yes, we have that means deploying troops on a indefinite basis in far flung places. But the price is lower in peace maintaining then in trying to win the peace again, what you're seeing now is some elites, but most dramatically the president himself asked the question is it still worth it? Do we still need to do that? And when the president's asking that question, Ben, it's so much louder than if it's just a New York Times op, Ed that's asking the question. And so that I think contributes to the sense of doubt about American commitment to global leadership when you think about a global leadership problem is it really the issue of domestic. Dick, political leadership problems. I think so if you go back one hundred twenty years, you say what the future look like you saw one country the United States that had access to cheap energy that was at the forefront of the manufacturing industrial revolution. And because of immigration could do a brain drain to get the best and most industrious entrepreneur, but Nora people of the world to come here and build their lives here, and because of that combination America vaulted past the other countries that couldn't compete on those dimensions. Fast forward to today, America's access to cheap energy, America's at the cutting edge of the new manufacturing revolution. And we're still the most attractive place for immigration still the world's best and brightest want to come to America and would like to build their future in America. That could we haven't fixed that problem we've made it hard for them to do. So, but that's for domestic reasons not for structural reasons. Say the way the Japanese are struggling with this or even the Chinese are struggling with this. So those three legs of the stool on which we stood are available to us now. So the next hundred years could be our century as well if we solve the domestic political functioning problem does the next leader needs to be somebody. That's coming from politics or could this come from somewhere else? Well, one of the challenges were seeing in twenty eighteen is that our leaders from other prominent institutions, let's. Say tech big tech, which were kind of the darlings of the last decade they've stumbled and gotten their shoes dirty. And so I think people doubt big tech today in a way that they might not have a decade ago traditional corporate America, doesn't look good the financial institutions. I think public is still skeptical about them because the great recession and the institution that's held in high esteem is the one we don't want to come to the rescue. And that's the military, but we do not need. We do not want the military to come rescue us from this political. Are you worried at all that that we could be in that situation at some point? I don't worry that the military has that impulse worry that desperate civilians might ask the military to do that in some way. And indeed that's one of the things we've seen that President Trump is reached out to senior military officers active and retired to fill jobs that in previous administration for filled by civilians, but the pattern. In of asking the military to rescue us from military threats. That's not a good pattern. So if you say who do I look for to help us solve our political problems? It's our politicians I want our political leaders to step up. Peter fever is the director of the Duke program in American grand strategy. And I want to emphasize his last point that while Americans respect and admire the military. We do not want military leaders to save us from our current political crisis. That's not the American political model. We need political leaders as Peter emphasizes to be better at their jobs. Coming up. We look at leadership among black Americans conservative Americans. And I talked with Katie Couric about why Americans have lost faith in the media. They with us. This is the takeaway. Dada comment for the show hit us up on our Facebook page. Tweet us at the take or leave us a voicemail at eight seven seven eight. My take your ideas on takes are a huge part of who we are. Let us know what you're thinking about. This is the takeaway. KCRW sponsors.

America President Trump supreme court Katie Couric Republican party United States president congress Facebook Mark NATO New York Times KCRW Peter fever Dada Dick Nora Ben Ed
"peter emphasize" Discussed on The Takeaway

The Takeaway

02:50 min | 1 year ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on The Takeaway

"Cheap energy, America's at the cutting edge of the new manufacturing revolution. And we're still the most attractive place for immigration still. The world's best and brightest want to come to America and would like to build their future in America. The could we haven't fixed that problem we've made it hard for them to do. So, but that's for domestic reasons. Not for structural reasons. Say the way the Japanese are struggling with this or even the Chinese are struggling with this. So those three legs of the stool on which we stood in the twentieth century are available to us now. So the next hundred years could be our century as well if we solve the domestic political functioning from does the next leader need to be somebody that's coming from politics. Meaning that the person that's really going to set the stage for us thinking about who America is America's role in the world. Does it always have to be the president or could this come from somewhere else? Well, one of the challenges were seeing in twenty eighteen is that our leaders from other prominent institutions, let's say tech big tech, which were kind of the Dr. Darlings of the last decade they've stumbled and gotten their shoes dirty. And so I think people doubt big tech today in a way that they might not have a decade ago traditional corporate America, doesn't look good the financial institutions. I think public is still skeptical about them because the great recession and the institution that's held in high esteem is the one we don't want to come to the rescue. And that's the military so the public so as confidence in the military, but we do not need. We do not want the military to come rescue us from this political. He's worried at all that that we could be in that situation at some point. I don't worry that the military has that impulse worry that a that desperate civilians might ask the military to do that in some way. And indeed that's one of the things we've seen that President Trump is reached out to senior military officers active and retired to fill jobs that in previous administration for filled by civilians, but the pattern of. Asking the military to rescue us from military threats. That's not a good pattern for us to get into. So if you say who do I look for to help us over political problems? It's our politicians I want our political leaders to step up. Peter fever is the director of the Duke program in American grand strategy. And I want emphasize his last point that while Americans respect and admire the military. We do not want military leaders to save us from our current political crisis. That's not the American political model. We need political leaders as Peter emphasizes to be better at their jobs..

America Peter fever President Trump president Dr. Darlings director hundred years
"peter emphasize" Discussed on The Takeaway

The Takeaway

13:13 min | 2 years ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on The Takeaway

"This is the takeaway. I'm Amy Walter, and today we're replaying it episode on American leadership. It feels particularly fitting this week after a nation lost one of our most respected leaders Senator John McCain. The question we asked this hour where is American leadership, both at home and abroad, and will American leadership indoor. We hope it gives you something to think about over the Labor Day holiday. And when we're just weeks away from the midterm elections, when Americans will elect a new group of leaders enjoy. In a small village in northern France. One hundred years ago the summer of nineteen eighteen the US was taking its first steps onto the world stage. When alex. Eight hundred years ago around this time, America was entering the world's stage by joining won the battle of bellawood, which was the birth story of the modern American Marine Corps, but certainly recognition that American military might would matter. Peter fever is a public policy professor at Duke University director of the Duke program in American grand strategy and a member of the national Security Council in the George W Bush administration for a decade or two for actually for about twenty years. American did not wield the global leadership commensurate with its potential power until World War Two and operation torch. The landing on North Africa followed by of course d day that was the hinge of the century. After that point America shoulder, the leadership role, replaced Great Britain as the leader of the free world and has never had the mantle off politically economically and also psychological power, cultural powered the recognition that America was the future. And if you wanted to be on the right side of the future, you wanted to be on the path that America's. But in two thousand eighteen American leadership, no longer looks as bright according to Gallup, the average trust in institutions like the presidency public schools. The supreme court and organized religion is just thirty three percent congress. Will it fall somewhere around eleven percent, which by the way is just over what the emoji movie scored on run tomatoes, it's that bad. This is the question of Twenty-eight. Teen will American leadership in door. This is the takeaway. I'm Amy Walter in this hour, we'll be exploring that question will American leadership indoor. It is so much easier to get your arms around the question. Who decides on a question that is about your neighborhood library branch than what is going to happen with immigration reform in the US Senate, the number of people who being treated from death row that is one of the most salient examples of the degree of change that can happen. I would like to think that because there's such a vacuum of ideas in the party right now, somebody with political ambition will try to fill that vacuum. I see all these media outlets, nothing about these. I don't know who's working there. I don't know who's running it. I think it's gotten incredibly confusing for the consumer. The institution America's most trust, perhaps not surprisingly is the military. Let's start there. Here's Peter fever from Duke University. Again, I asked him, will Americans faith in the military last well. There's reason to think that it may not last indefinitely. The military focuses on this number closely. They worry about it, but why might not last well, for starters, if you disagree gate, you realize it's a super high level of confidence among Republicans and just a moderate high among Democrats. So the average numbers in the sixties or high fifties, but it's propped up by Republican numbers in the nineties and democratic numbers in the low fifties. Also, we do see a demographic or generational shift. That is to say, the younger people have less confidence than older people. They also have less personal connections, ties family members, immediate family members. It's their grandparents who served not their parents. So. Oh, all these reasons might point down, but there's one more that flag for you when I started in this business twenty thirty years ago and I talked about it. I'd say there's two institutions that the public has high degree of confidence, the military and the supreme court. I no longer after say, right. The public confidence in the supreme court has plummeted why there several reasons. But one, raining a theory is that the public aimed look at the supreme court as a partisan institution. And the institutions of the public dislikes tends to be the ones that are perceived to be partisan congress. Obviously, a partisan institution, the media perceived to be partisan. The danger is if the military comes to be seen as partisan forgets to closely associated with one party, most likely the Republican party will that cause people to look at the military through a partisan lens of so that could cause public confidence. To drop. Okay. Let's step back now to another question of trust and leadership, which is America's role in the world. Is America the leader of the international order? Yes. If you look at the last hundred years, that's the defining geopolitical fact of the last century. This is the question of twenty eighteen will American leadership in door. And if I were to summarize the questions for America, I would say I do Americans understand the price of freedom. Secondly, do they understand the benefits of global leadership? Thirdly, do our allies trust us and respect us enough to shoulder load for through our adversaries, fear us and don't wanna cross. And then fifth, our government work, and those five questions are up for grabs in a way that they haven't been in our professional lifetime, though. This didn't just start in twenty eight teen and probably didn't just start in two thousand sixteen. With the election either. So where do you begin to analyze where this question about American leadership in the world? Well, the Europeans would begin at right after the end of World War Two or actually in the middle of World War Two. They said they had grave doubts about the quality of American leadership, and and if you go back the the things that were arguing about today are the Europeans carrying their load. On the one hand, is America behaving recklessly like a cowboy. That's what we argued about at the founding of the transatlantic lights. Indeed, that's the reason for NATO, was to corral the Europeans into carrying their load and from the European point of view, tie the Americans in so they don't do something reckless like they did in nineteen nineteen. So what's different now, what's different now is all of those arguments have more merit today than they did before. So German shirking on the defense budget is greater today than it's ever been. So President Trump is absolutely right when he calls out the European. Wins that they could be doing more should be doing more. They need to do more. He's right about that at the same time, European complaints about the way America's conducting diplomacy in the last two years. Those have more merit today than in previous times. I wanna go back to can't remember. It was one two or three of your important points to think about going forward. One of those was that Americans understand the price of freedom, right? Is that really the core issue here that in lesser intil Americans have a relationship with what it means to have America. In this role, the faith in it is never going to be able to come back in the leadership will never be able to rise. I do think that American self confidence is crucial in the thirties. We shifted to off academics, call offshore, balancing. Will stay off shore and let the problems on the continent manage themselves. But then we had to fight our way on literally fighter way on shore on d day in order to stabilize a broken bouts of power system and Americans learned at that moment that we can't afford to fight our way back on shore. We need to stay on shore. Yes, we have that means deploying troops on a indefinite basis in far flung places, but the price is lower in peace maintaining than in trying to win the peace again, what you're seeing now is some elites, but most dramatically the president himself asked the question, is it still worth it? Do we still need to do that? And when the president's asking that question, then it so much louder than if it's just a New York Times op-ed. That's asking the question so that I think contributes to the sense of doubt about American commitment to global leadership. When you think about eight global leadership problem, is it really the issue of domestic political leadership problems? I think so, if you go back one hundred twenty years, you say, what the future look like? You saw one country the United States that had access to cheap energy that was at the forefront of the manufacturing industrial revolution, and because of immigration could do a brain drain to get the best. And most industrious entrepreneur, neuro people of the world to come here and build their lives here. And because of that combination America vaulted past the other countries that couldn't compete on those dimensions. Fast forward today, America's access to cheap energy America's at the cutting edge of the new manufacturing revolution, and we're still the most attractive place for immigration. Still the world's best and brightest want to come to merica and would like to build their future in America. The could. We haven't fixed that problem. We've made it hard for them to do so, but that's for domestic reasons. Not for structural reasons. Say the way the Japanese are struggling with this or even the Chinese are struggling with this. So those three legs of the stool on which we stood in the twentieth century are available to us now. So the next hundred years could be our century as well. If we solve the domestic political functioning from does the next leader needs to be somebody that's coming from politics, meaning that the person that's really going to set the stage for us thinking about who America is America's role in the world? Does it always have to be the president. Or could this come from somewhere else. Well, one of the challenges were seeing in twenty eighteen is that our leaders from other prominent institutions, let's say, tech, big tech, which were kind of the darlings of the last decade. They stumbled and gotten their shoes dirty. And so I think people doubt big tech today in a way that they might not have a decade ago. Traditional corporate America doesn't look good. The financial institutions, I think public is still skeptical about them because the great recession and the institution that's held in high esteem is the one we don't want to come to the rescue, and that's the military. So the public confidence in the military, but we do not need. We do not want the military to come rescue us from this political. He's worried at all that that we could be in that situation. At some point. I don't worry that the military has that impulse worry that a that desperate civilians might ask the military to do that in some way. Indeed, that's one of the things we've seen that President Trump is reached out to senior military officers, active and retired to fill jobs that in previous administration for filled by civilians. But the pattern of asking the military to rescue us from military threats. That's not a good pattern for us to get into. So if say, who do I look for to help us over political problems? It's our politicians. I want our political leaders to step up. Peter fever is the director of the Duke program in American grand strategy. And I want to emphasize his last point that while Americans respect and admire the military, we do not want military leaders to save us from our current political crisis. That's not the American political model. We need political leaders as Peter emphasizes to be better at their jobs. Look,

America United States supreme court Duke University Amy Walter Peter fever American Marine Corps President Trump Senator John McCain president France director US Senate alex North Africa bellawood national Security Council Republican party
"peter emphasize" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:51 min | 2 years ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"The cutting edge of the new manufacturing revolution and we're still the most attractive place for immigration still the world's best and brightest want to come to america and would like to build their future in america that could we haven't fixed that problem we've made it hard for them to do so but that's for domestic reasons not for structural reasons say the way the japanese are struggling with this or even the chinese are struggling with this so those three pillars the three legs of the stool on which we stood in the twentieth century are available to us now so the next hundred years could be our century as well if we solve the domestic political functioning from does the next leader needs to be somebody that's coming from politics meaning that the person that's really going to set the stage for us thinking about who america is america's role in the world does it always have to be the president or could this come from somewhere else well one of the challenges we're seeing in twenty eighteen is that our leaders from other prominent institutions let's say tech big tech which were kind of the darlings of the last decade they've stumbled and and gotten their shoes dirty and so i think people doubt big tech today in a way that they might not have a decade ago traditional corporate america doesn't look good the financial institutions i think public is still skeptical about them because the great recession and the institution that's held in high esteem is the one we don't want to come to the rescue and that's the military so the public still has confidence in the military but we do not need we do not want the military to come rescue us from this political are you worried at all that that we could be in that situation at some point i don't worry that the military has that impulse worry that that desperate civilians might ask the military to do that in some way and indeed that's one of the things we've seen that president trump is reached out to senior military officers active and retired to fill jobs that in previous administration for filled by civilians but the pattern of asking the military to rescue us from military threats that's not a good pattern for us to get into so if you say who do i look for to help us over political problems it's our politicians i want our political leaders to step up peter fever is the director of the duke program in american grand strategy and i want to emphasize his last point that while americans respect and admire the military we do not want military leaders to save us from our current political crisis that's not the american political model we need political leaders as peter emphasizes to be better at their jobs.

america president trump director peter hundred years
"peter emphasize" Discussed on The Takeaway

The Takeaway

02:53 min | 2 years ago

"peter emphasize" Discussed on The Takeaway

"Cheap energy america's at the cutting edge of the new manufacturing revolution and we're still the most attractive place for immigration still the world's best and brightest want to come to america and would like to build their future in america the could we haven't fixed that problem we've made it hard for them to do so but that's for domestic reasons not for structural reasons say the way the japanese are struggling with this or even the chinese are struggling with this so those three pillars are the the the three legs of the stool on which we stood in the twentieth century are available to us now so the next hundred years could be our century as well if we solve the domestic political functioning from does the next leader need to be somebody that's coming from politics meaning that the person that's really going to set the stage for us thinking about who america is america's role in the world does it always have to be the president or could this come from somewhere else well one of the challenges were seeing in twenty eighteen is that our leaders from other prominent institutions let's say tech big tech which were kind of the darlings of the last decade they've stumbled and and gotten their shoes dirty and so i think people doubt big tech today in a way that they might not have a decade ago traditional corporate america doesn't look good the financial institutions i think public is still skeptical about them because the great recession and the institution that's held in high esteem is the one we don't want to come to the rescue and that's the military so the public confidence in the military but we do not need we do not want the military to come rescue us from this political worried at all that that we could be in that situation at some point i don't worry that the military has that impulse worry that a that desperate civilians might ask the military too to do that in some way and indeed that's one of the things we've seen that president trump is reached out to senior military officers active and retired to fill jobs that in previous administration for filled by civilians but the pattern of asking the military to rescue us from non military threats that's not a good pattern for us to get into so if you say who do i look for to help us over political problems it's our politicians i want our political leaders to step up peter fever is the director of the duke program in american grand strategy and i want to emphasize his last point that while americans respect and admire the military we do not want military leaders to save us from our current political crisis that's not the american political model we need political leaders as peter emphasizes to be better at their jones.

america president trump director peter hundred years