Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Keyword Tag Cloud
04/24/2008
George Shultz
A conversation with George Shultz
Keywords:
A conversation with George Shultz. Schultz served as the United States Secretary of Labor from 1969 to 1970, as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974, and as the U.S. Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
The man oozes with wisdom and intelligence. He also knows how to handle himself. Think of that man's experience--and not how calm and methodical and patient he is. If only Charlie would ask folks like Mr. Schultz questions and let them speak; instead, Charlie asks questions and then proceeds to answer them himself. Please learn, Charlie.....
I found Mr. Shultz comments about convincing Americans to work longer to be laughable. Try convincing American corporations to employ people past the age of 40 and quite outsourcing to third world countries. I'm 50 and was "layed off" because of my age and can't even get an interview because of my age. There are many ways around "equal opportunity".
Nice conversation. I like this guy, Mr. Schultz. He is a mild man with sensible thoughts, no wonder he is Governor Schwazenegger's advisor. He is nice unlike many of the moderate Republicans, I like his view on Cuba; the Soviet no longer exist, which by the way were the main reason for us to have check mark on Cuba. Why hold on to a peasant society by a headlock just because they were once allies with our competitors? It is better to change Cuba by getting closer to them and allowing goods and services to transcend political ideologues. The policy we had since 1991 on Cuba is very childish. We won over Soviets, why beat on the smaller guy that have nothing? We could have drastic changes in Cuba had we had a positive policy for the past 15 years. We have better relations with the Russians today, we do business with them but not the poor peasants next door a 100 miles away??? If you think about it the policy on Cuba is silly at best and immoral.
Mr Schultz is way off the mark. The Bush Administration had terrible ideas on top of its bad execution. If the ideas weren't terrible, they were at the very least fanciful and unrealistic. Schultz obviously feels he has to maintain his allegiance to conservative politics, no matter how absurd. The disagreements he has with the current administration are pretty trivial. Finally, the only "outrage" about President Carter's visit with Hamas in Syria--which has a strong groundswell of public support--is that conservatives have shamefully pounced on an opportunity for political sniping. Carter is one of the only American leaders to stand for sense and rationality and he should be commended for it.
Secretary Shultz should be listened to by the Presidential candidates. Obama is far better than Clinton and McCain in moving our policy toward rational national interest, but even he does not go far enough.
Re: George Schultz interview. Here's a question I wish you would have asked. If the solution to the Social Security crisis is for Baby Boomers to work well past the age of retirement, what companies will be happy to hire them? Boomers are often fired from companies who are only too happy to replace them with cheaper, younger talent. As they search for jobs that pay less than they were making, their experience and talent are often not welcome because companies believe they will leave the minute something better comes along. Boomers are dumbing down their resumes, reducing their salary requirements and living with increasingly dim prospects. Believe me, Boomers would be more than happy to work throughout their lifetime, if companies were happy to hire them.
It was disappointing to find Charlie Rose giving a platform to George Shultz, one of the instigators of the infamous Iran-Contra fiasco. He and the other conspirators of that treasonous undertaking should be tried for their high crimes. As for his remarks, most of them were disingenuous or simply nonsense. The only sensible thing he had to say was that we should end the isolation of Cuba.
Is this discussed in Mr. Shultz'z magnum opus: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19817.htm
Regarding Citizen Carter, he was a product of Admiral Hyman Rickover's nuclear navy which fostered an omnipotent intellectual elitism in Citizen Carter. To assuage his guilt for thse feeling Citizen Carter goes to church and prays to God that he be given the moral guidance and courage to do the right thing, which is to be of service to his fellow man.
One has to understand that Mr Schultz's purpose was to hawk his book. In that he wasn't going to elaborate, as he wants you to buy a copy. With regards to Citizen Carter, his presence can and will help obscure what the real intent of those who command the levers of power want to accomplish by giving a false sense of being representative of that power. So Citizen Carter being at one time commander of the lever of power is either playing to his own ego or to his misguided sense of altruism.
I wish George Shultz hadn't pontificated about Mr. Carter. Why, exactly, was Carter's visit a bad idea? And how, too, can one admit the deficit is a grave problem and still be for the Iraq invasion? Mr. Shultz too often neglected to explain himself. (Isn't it the role of the moderator to elicit clarification at such times?)
The wisedom that old men usually impart is how not to repeat the mistakes that they have made in their lives. Anybody who doesn't listen is usually doomed to repeat those mistakes and turns out to be a GDmed fool. One doesn't have to agree but just listen.
George Shultz, another delusional Republican with no sense of accountability for the mess they have created, and Charlie Rose the enabler! Just once Charlie, it would be nice if you challenged some of the more egregious comments such as Shultz's comment that W had "good ideas". Please just name one! Or a better follow up to your comment that deficits blossomed under Reagan and the Bushes which Shultz deflected by quoting a bureaucrat who stated that "Democrats enjoy spending money." And Repoublicans what? Claim the "devil made them do it"?
Some really wise words from your guests. The reason I love America is that sane far-sighted minds like the people you interview always have a place to be heard. It is up to our leaders to listen, heed the sound advice, ignore the sclerotic outmoded thinking, and take constructive action. There is nothing that America cannot do well if it lets its saner minds prevail. At the same time America must always keep in mind that each and every one of us has a blind spot and inconsistencies in our logic: of which we saw two classic examples tonight from your distinguished guests. One guest recommends we continue to engage and talk with China, to which I agree, even as the policies of China support genocide in Africa รข?? not only in Dafur, but also in southern Africa by sending arms to geriatric dictators contemplating killing off opposition party members and supporters. If engagement has a chance of success in communist-led Tibet-stomping African genocide-tolerant China, which it does, there is no compelling argument why it should not be tried with other people with whom we sometimes have adversarial relations, in Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., absent the old warrior bravado because, as North Korea so vividly demonstrated, once you have a deterrent, the conversation becomes less dismissive and a lot more tempered, civilized, and respectful. The other amusing logical inconsistency relates to the use of geopolitical prostitutes and mercenaries in cold wars - which all God-fearing and trusting countries did and continue to do - and then being surprised at the blow-back after we cast them aside when they have served their purpose. That inconsistency dissolves if we avoid revisionism and let these people understand what they should have understood in the first place: the commonality of interest was always very limited. They should have understood that we were not particularly interested in their advancement per se; the intervention in Afghanistan was never about Afghanistan but about the Soviet Union. They screwed us in other Third World countries and we were going to fix them in Afghanistan. Our interests with the Afghanis were in defeating a common enemy, and only that. There is some continuing currency to that truth in Afghanistan and, need I say, Iraq today, even if the enemy has changed.
"jingo" sure gets a lot of use these days. Phil Donawho, i thought he was way out of the picture-bumped off by opra or Dr. Phil.
AGREE WITH FERDINAND! Phil Donahue is a helluva lot more of a REAL statesman than Geo ever will be. War wounded are to be avoided with Phil; created with George's jingoism. He and Hillary, with her nuke-Iran and dodging of heroic-images in Bosnia lying and straining her milk to get to the Presidency, are both disgusting beyond endurance.
I watched the A.G. Lafley (billionaire PG CEO) and I had to laugh. You said something like, you want to learn from him and maybe improve the government.In case you have't noticed, corporations control our country. You may as well ask the fox how to reduce the loss of hens from the hen house he is guarding.
Who said "smart" rational is the word. I havn't heard anything smart or rational by anyone in 7.5 years.
The only genuiunely smart thing George offered was his disagreement with our Cuban policy. Otherwise largely disappointing.
Where have all of the rational conservatives gone? Is George Shultz the last one? Maybe Obama can recruit him and turn the country around.
Actually Tavis Smiley's interview with Phil Donahue, which followed Charlie Rose in the New York City area, was a hell of a lot more enlightening than Chatlie's interview with George Shultz. I would have been curious to know why Mr. Shultz supported the Iraq adventure. And I would be delighted to hear Charlie interview Phil Donahue soon.