Leon Panetta: Presidential Chief of Staff, CIA Director, and Secretary of Defense

Here's something remarkable and not in a good way. Disengaged employees cost US companies almost $1.9 trillion a year. That's a lot of zeros. Why? Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines, turnover increases, and strategies stagnate. But it doesn't have to be that way. At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications, your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time, and actually get things the cost of not upskilling way higher than the investment Project Management Institute. Find the answers@pmi.org. In this Remarkable People podcast, I interviewed Leon Panetta, a remarkable American who has dedicated most of his life to public service. A son of Italian immigrants, his service to his country began in 1964 as a U.S. intelligence officer. He received the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service and was discharged as a first lieutenant. He represented the Central coast of California in Congress from 1977 to 1983. Then he was the Director of the Office of Management and budget from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 to 1997, Panetta served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. Then he was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2009 to 2011 under President Barack Obama. He also served as President Barack Obama's secretary of defense from 2011 to 2013. It's an understatement to say he understands Washington, D.C. politics, national security, and international relations. Do you know why? Low yield nuclear weapons may have an awful unintended consequence. Keep listening and you'll find out. In this episode, Panetta offers his State of the Union explains what could go wrong if we do not adhere to the Constitution and how we can resist the erosion of democracy. Guy I'm Guy Kawasaki, and this is the Remarkable People podcast. And now here's Secretary Leon Panetta.

In my over 50 years of public life, I often say that I've seen Washington at its best and Washington at its worst. The good news is I've seen Washington work. During a good part of my career in Washington, I saw Republicans and Democrats work together and work on issues together. And I had that opportunity when I was in Congress to be able to work with my counterparts and really focus on getting things done, which was really what democracy is all about. But I also saw Washington become very polarized and dysfunctional. And I think what concerns me today is that the degree of polarization that's taking place in this country, it's not even based on policy so much as identity. And when it becomes based on identity, what happens is the Truth and facts don't matter as much as they used to. My fear right now in Washington is that we've become so polarized, so unable to agree on basic facts about what the problems are in this country, that our democracy is dysfunctional. And while history tells us that we faced dysfunction in the past, I don't take that for granted because I always assume that if for some reason we are not vigilant and don't care about what's happening, then I think our democracy could be in decline.

Is this the worst you've seen it?

It's the worst I've seen it in my lifetime. Which isn't to say that there aren't other periods like the Civil War and others, where it's been deeply divided and I'm sure very difficult and challenging. But this is. This is the worst I've seen it in my lifetime.

Do you think the acquittal and the subsequent celebration by Trump, do you think it marks the death of the American experiment or a mere bump in the road?

Well, in some ways, that remains to be seen. Look, I think we're at a point where America can go in one of two directions. I think in the 21st century, America could really be a country in Renaissance. We have tremendous creativity. I'm on the board of Oracle in Silicon Valley. I see the innovation, the efforts at developing, you know, kind of cutting edge technology for the future. I really do believe that young people could be trained in the skills of the 21st century. I think we could develop a way to govern ourselves, to work together to be world leaders in a very difficult and dangerous world. I think we could be. We could be the strongest, I believe, a country that truly reflects on the values that we're all about. Or we could be in America in decline and follow the path of past empires that the Roman Empire, for whatever reason, past empires lost track of the problems they were facing, did not have the leadership, ignored those problems, and I think ultimately declined. And we could be that kind of country. So, you know, what direction we take is going to largely be determined by the quality of leadership we have. I'm someone who tells the students in this classroom that in a democracy, we govern either by leadership or crisis. If leadership is there and willing to take the risk associated with leadership, I'm a believer that if you're a leader, you have to take risk and you're willing to do that, I think you can avoid crisis, but if you aren't willing to exert that kind of leadership, then I think we'll govern by Crisis. And I think what's happening today is we're largely governing by crisis. And there's a price to be paid for that, which is the loss of trust of the American people in our system of governing.

And also the loss of trust in America by non Americans.

I think the loss of trust by others who used to look to America for leadership based on the values that this country was supposed to be all about.

And how would we turn this situation around?

In the end, it's going to require the kind of leadership I'm talking about. But the great thing about the American experiment is that even though our forefathers and framers built into the Constitution as a system of checks and balances, a system of separate but equal branches of government, I think the ultimate power still rests with the people. Our Constitution begins with the statement, we the people. In order to establish a more just country, it's up to we the people. And I really do think in the end, it's going to largely be dependent on whether we the people decide that we want a kind of leadership that reflects the values that this country is supposed to be all about. I still believe in that leadership. I think. I think most people in this country are common sense, believe deeply in what this country is all about and the opportunity that this country provides to people. I'm the son of Italian immigrants. You know, I used to ask my dad, why did you come all of that distance to come to this country? They came in the early 30s like millions of other immigrants. And my dad said something I've never forgotten, which is he said, the reason your mother and I came to this country is because we believed we could give our children a better life. I think that's the fundamental American dream. It's about giving our children a better life. And it's up to us. It's up to us to determine whether or not we're going to pass a country on to our children that gives them a better chance at success than we have.

My grandfather and your father would probably not be welcome today. Right. We don't, you know, we're not Norwegian and we're not educated. My grandfather came to pick sugar cane. Your father, you know, well, he was an entrepreneur. He started that restaurant, right?

Yeah. But when he came into this country, he was labeled a peasant, Right?

He put that down on his.

Form. Yeah.

Peasant.

Yeah.

And I'm Japanese American. You're Italian American. I'm from Hawaii, so it didn't happen to my family. But your. Your grandfather was moved from the coast.

That's right.

Because they were afraid that he would be spying for the Italians.

Right? Yeah. No, I think he was in his late 70s, and I couldn't believe it as a kid that my. They were taking my nonnu. My grandfather, and suddenly moving them inland away from the coast.

Moving him to San Jose makes him.

I mean, it's like, harmless. Give me a break. Yeah.

And all the Japanese Americans are stuck in camps.

Of course.

This is a very hypothetical question, but you are qualified to answer this. So let's suppose that Trump loses the next election. He declares it a fake election. He refuses to vacate office. McConnell and the Senate, they fall right in line. You know, Roberts and the fraternity. And the Supreme Court punts. Now, what happens in that case.

It sure as hell is going to test our Constitution and what we're about as a country. And it's also going to test the American people in terms of whether or not we're going to protect this country. I spend a lot more time these days thinking about the trauma we went through in the Civil War and the fact that this was a country that split apart. I mean, we had states that seceded from the Union and eventually it led to a civil war. But imagine the depth of feeling and hatred and anger and frustration that created that division. But, you know, somehow cost a lot of lives that were lost in the Civil War. But somehow, you know, with the leadership of somebody like Abraham Lincoln, we were able to hold our union together. Now, I think it is not beyond imagination, and what literally has to. It's not beyond imagination, the scenario I think you painted, because I think Trump is not somebody who operates by any moral boundaries. He is not that kind of individual. And so it's very possible that he could. He could do that. But I still believe that the leaders of this country, whether they're Republican or Democrat, are not going to allow this country to be torn apart by a president who decides that elections don't count.

So who does the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff listen to? Does the Senate or like Pelosi or McConnell say get him out of there? I don't understand, literally, how does it work?

I think what we've seen these last few years, even though Trump brought a lot of military leaders into his cabinet and into the White House, but what he found out is that military leaders believe first and foremost in what this country is all about. They don't just follow blind orders from a president and command in chief.

Okay.

And I think that gives me some hope that in the end, they'll do what's Right.

So the case of Richard Spencer and Colin Greene, both resigning, you know, the Navy SEAL and Secretary of the Navy, and the message was, you don't rebel, you resign. So if I'm a military leader today and I face this kind of decision, I resign. Is that what you do?

If, in the end, the President of the United States is doing something that violates every standard and code that you swear to uphold, and he's going to proceed to do that, I don't think you have any alternative but to resign. Okay.

I'm very interested how you view people like James Mattis and John Kelly. Now, I know James Mattis is speaking for you or has spoken for you.

Right. He's at our lecture series this year.

So one part of me says these guys are complicit. And it's like saying, well, I only worked for Hitler a couple, three years. I'm not the bad guy. Or do you view them as, well, they were patriots, they served their country. They went to work for commander in chief they didn't agree with because they loved their country. How do you interpret Amadis or a. Kelly?

First and foremost, the way you understand both of them is that they're both Marines through and through.

What does that mean?

They're Marines, they're soldiers. They, you know, they do. They do what they believe is right for the country. They follow orders. They believe deeply in this country and what it's all about. And I think deep down, it is about service to the country. That's the bottom line. It's about service to the country. If I believe I'm serving the best interests of this country in whatever I'm doing, then I believe I'm doing the right thing. Now, I may be operating with a president who I disagree with. I may be operating with a commander I disagree with. But if I feel like I can steady the ship and keep it going in the right direction, even though I'm going to have to cut some corners, then I tell myself I'm serving the country. And I think that's what both of them did.

Okay. It seems to me that the current crop of Democratic candidates, they're basically playing inside the box. They participate in debates, they appeal to their base. They're trying to, you know, if they're too far left, they try to moderate themselves. If they're too moderate, they try to go further left. They raise tens of millions of dollars. You know, all that. And yet I see them, they're up against Trump, who's going to spend a billion dollars. I don't Know how you put a dollar value on Russian help, but, you know, call that another billion. So they're up against this two billion dollar machine and they're raising tens of millions. So first of all, is that a.

Accurate assumption that assumes that Bloomberg doesn't get.

Okay, I'm coming to that. Okay, so my next paragraph here I can show you is. I'll read it. Then there's Bloomberg, net worth 61 billion, buys as many super bowl commercials as Trump. Isn't he the most equipped to take on Trump?

No. I mean, I think that's why a lot of people are giving him a second look, because they're worried that what's going to happen is that as the Democrats kill each other in the primary process and hurt each other, that ultimately whoever emerges is going to be very weakened by the process and won't have the money or support to be able to take on Trump. And so I think a lot of people are saying maybe it does take somebody like a Bloomberg who has a billion dollars, who's willing to spend it on ads going after Trump, who is able to, to take him on, who's a businessman who obviously has been successful at what he's done. So there are a lot of people that are making those arguments and I can understand it. I think that in the end, if it's going to happen, it's got to be because the Democratic Party feels that he represents the best chance at beating Trump.

I have made a case to my family that the reason why Trump won was not because that many people wanted Trump, they just didn't want Hillary. Whether that's right or wrong, I think.

There'S a combination of things here. I talked about that dysfunction in the last 20 years in Washington. It has become much more dysfunctional. And the problem is problems are not being solved. I mean, presidents, whether they're Democrat or Republican, have tried to turn to executive orders. They can't deal with the Congress, they can't govern the way they should be governing for a lot of reasons. And it created the sense that nothing was getting done. And I think produced a lot of frustration and anger in the American people who said Washington is not working. You know, I know this guy is crazy. I know he doesn't represent the views that I represent and he doesn't, certainly doesn't represent the morality that this country is all about. But I know one thing, that he will go there and produce change. I think that was a big factor. I also think that there was a lot of anti Hillary feeling about Hillary is just not the right person, for a lot of reasons, didn't relate to her, she didn't relate to people, and that created problems as well. So all of those factors produced Donald Trump as President of the United States.

So can we not, this year, flip it the other way? Where people say, it's not that I like Bloomberg that much or Buttigieg or Yang or Klobuchar or Biden or, you know, Bernie, it's just that I'm not voting for Trump. So couldn't he lose because nobody wants to vote for him as opposed to.

I think that's a real possibility. But you can't. You can't beat him just by telling people to vote against him. You still have to have a candidate, what you stand for, who represents an alternative and represents what this country should be all about.

You have been obviously, CIA secretary, chief of staff, Congressman, for my simple brain, could you explain to me what goes through the brains of senators when they declare that they're going to work with Trump's lawyers in advance? There's no. I mean, like, what alternate reality does a juror say, I know he's not guilty. Select me to the jury. I mean, what's going through their minds when they say something like that? Even if you believe this, shouldn't you lie?

Frankly, I find it very difficult to in any way be able to rationalize what these senators did. Mitt Romney did something very courageous because he basically said, I looked at the facts, and the facts proved that the president did, in fact, abuse his power as President of the United States. And I have to tell you, in my time in the Congress and in working with the Congress, I really thought that most members believed in the end that they had to vote based on what was right for the country. As a matter of fact, the presidents I worked for, whether it was Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, as political as they may have been, deep down, they wanted to do what was right for the country. And that always gave me a sense of confidence that, you know, in the end, push comes to shove, whether it's politics or money or whatever else, they're going to do what's right for the country. I think that's what you're supposed to do when you're elected. Your responsibility is to do what's right for the country. So I don't understand how they could suddenly sell their soul. Well, I do understand, because if you look at politics as just survival, reelection and reelection, they have basically decided the only way they're going to be able to get reelected and survive is if they basically commit themselves to whatever Trump is and does. And I think that is how Republicans justified their vote. That, yeah, he did something wrong. But, you know, in the end, I'm not going to get rid of him because he's my best bet to retain power.

Do you think that, Tom Coutrell. Is that how you pronounce it? Kuchel. Tom.

Kiko. Kiko. Kiko.

K U C H E L S.

K U C H L. Kiko. Yeah.

Okay. You think he's turning over in his grave right now?

Absolutely. Absolutely. I'll never forget when I first went back, I got out of the army and was able to get the job working as his legislative assistant. And I went back and there were two legislative assistants in those days, which tells you something about the Senate. I mean, now there are probably 20, but there were two of us. One handled domestic issues, the other handled the defense issues. And he brought us into the office and he said, I've never forgotten these words. He said, look, you're going to be tempted in this town. There are going to be people that are going to try to take you to lunch or buy you things in order to influence my vote. And I want you to remember one thing, that the reason you are here is to serve the interests of the people of California and the people of this country. And I want you to remember one thing. In the morning when you get up, you have to look at yourself in the mirror. I never forgot that because in many ways, it's about integrity. It's about doing what's right. And that was the example he did. I mean, he basically did what was right. He voted for civil rights as a Republican. He voted for labor issues. He voted for, you know, education. He really believed he was a progressive Republican. I think he would be very offended by what he sees happening with the Republican Party today.

Are there mirrors in the Senate men's room?

Yes, there are.

There are.

Okay.

I was just checking. I mean, you never know.

You never know.

I have to ask.

They may have taken him down.

Is there a majority men's room and a minority men's room are switching a little bit to international. Do you believe in the domino theory?

It depends on the particular situation. In the Middle east, for example, if we didn't confront terrorism like ISIS and Al Qaeda, I think that there's no question that they would gain traction and then be begin to try to dominate countries, particularly failed states in the Middle East. And to some extent, that's kind of a form of a domino theory that would take place. There are Some areas where that's true. On the other hand, I always believe that the most important thing about the United States is if we're going to provide leadership in the world, we, we do have to understand what motivates these countries. What are they interested in, what makes them who they are. We can't just create them in our own image. Even though we love democracy, we love what democracy is all about, we still have to understand those countries. I think when we had the so called Arab Spring where countries were revolting against monarchies and tyrannies, what we failed to do was to understand each of those countries because they came from a tribal history and somehow we thought that they could evolve into Jeffersonian democracy a.

Little bit that way.

Yeah, I think it was. And I really think we, you know, in order for us to exercise leadership, we need to understand these countries. Bill Clinton, when he was president, he was somebody who taught me a lot about how you provide leadership. When he sat down with a foreign leader, he didn't do all the talking. He didn't tell them what he wanted them to do. He listened to them. And then he would say, if I was in your shoes, this is what I would try to do. He tried to place himself in the position of that person. And I think leadership like that is the most effective because it really understands what motivates these countries and then how you can mold them so that in the end you can advance human rights and all of the values that we care about.

One way of looking at 9, 11 is that 2,900 people die in America, then we go into a war and 2,400 people die seeking revenge and teaching them a lesson. So my question here is, on an international stage, when do you retaliate and when do you negotiate and when does it, does it make sense for 2400 people to die? Avenging 2900people.

You'Re raising the fundamental issues that challenge the quality of our leadership. If we have the right kind of leadership, it can determine when it is that we have to retaliate and when it is. That being the strongest military power in the world, that we use our diplomacy to try to reach out to those countries that are adversaries and try to find ways to deal with them through our ability to negotiate, our ability to persuade, our ability to try to develop common ways to achieve goals that both countries want to achieve. That now America is at its strongest when it has the strongest military on the face of the earth, but also has the strongest diplomacy on the face of the earth. And if you don't have that combination, then it's always going to be easy for a commander in chief to say, screw it. I don't want to just negotiate. I'll just blow the hell out of them. That can happen, and it has happened. I think the right way to deal with 911 was because it was an attack by Al Qaeda, that you clearly have a responsibility to go after Al Qaeda. And I think that was important to do, go after the leadership of Al Qaeda, who not only attacked our country, but continued to plan attacks on our country, to then take that same approach by going into Iraq. And. And the other mistakes that we made, I think reflected an America that did not take into consideration what was in our best interest. Okay.

It seems to me that America, or at least most Americans, believe that we have the ability and right to decide who can have nuclear weapons. So how did we decide? Well, you know, Pakistan, you're okay. North Korea, you're not okay. Iran, No, I mean, how did we become judge, jury, and executioner of who can get nuclear weapons? Not that I'm advocating that they get nuclear weapons, but how is that just pure American arrogance or.

Well, I think it goes back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we squeezed the trigger first, because we developed the atomic weapon and we used it, and it gave us a certain arrogance about our ability to not only have but develop atomic weapons. And I think Russia then did the same thing. And suddenly you had a group of nations that had nuclear capability, and their attitude was, we've got it. We don't want others to get it. And they. You know, I think there was an effort at one time to really develop standards of trying to control the development of nuclear weapons. The whole effort to develop the nuclear agreements that countries would abide by was part of the effort to try to develop some kind of approach that would not have nuclear weapons just simply proliferate across the globe and ultimately destroy our own planet. What happened was that there were a group of nations that were trying to drive that process, but what it failed to consider were countries like Pakistan and India and others who said North Korea, who said, wait a minute, we have as much right to a nuclear weapon as you do.

That's what I just asked, basically.

And they took that same approach. I think the only way you restrain that is if you bring those countries to the table and make them part of the effort to try to say, wait a minute, if we're going to restrain nuclear growth, then all of us have to be part of that effort. All of us have to be Part of that effort. In many ways, what's happening with cyber is the same damn thing today. I think cyber is the battlefield of the future. I think the failure to sit down and try to understand how cyber is being used, what limits we should place on the use of cyber, try to develop some standards for or when cyber is acceptable and when it's not acceptable, the failure to do that really means that I think at some point we are headed towards war in the cyber arena.

Do you think that low yield nuclear weapons are a deterrence or an irresistible toy that says, well, this is not such a bad nuclear weapon, so let's just fire a few of these?

I think it's dangerous to place these low yield weapons on our submarines because I think it increases the incentive to make use of those in a particular conflict. I mean, you may make the decision, even though it's not a nuclear war that you're engaging in, that if you use low yield nukes, that that will somehow be able to prevent the war from becoming worse. MacArthur's thinking in Korea was essentially use some low yield nuclear weapons and it doesn't take long if you deploy these low yield weapons out there, that you're going to create an incentive to potentially use those weapons in a situation where you otherwise would continue to, to use conventional weapons.

There must be some irony that you read the announcement of the low yield nuclear weapons on subs and the justification is, well, it's a deterrence against Russia and then Russia is, you know, our best friend now. I mean, like, how do you put those two things together?

Well, I mean, look, I think if people would be better off if they could thought about the fact that prior to making that decision, we were basically, we had taken the approach on deterrence that if they attacked us, we'd blow the hell out of them and they'd blow the hell out of us and we'd destroy the world. That was really the deterrence. I mean, who are we kidding? It was, you know, ultimately we're going.

To destroy the world and that's okay in a sense, right?

You know, in many ways it worked. Yeah, many ways it worked. Even though I think the old Soviet Union failed for a lot of reasons, probably largely economic, but nevertheless they collapsed. I think that it's dangerous to think that somehow by using low yield weapons that you give yourself greater flexibility and sometimes that's what the military looks for is how can we be a little more flexible here. Now part of the problem is Russia is doing the same damn thing and Russia is developing their nuclear Arsenal, and they're going to continue to develop that. And every country then tries to figure out how do we counter what that country is doing, doing. That's how the nuclear arms race begins. And my fear right now is that we're engaged in a nuclear arms race again with Russia.

There's only one treaty left, right?

That's right. And that's about to go.

Yeah. Getting off nuclear weapons. You hear a lot of talk about if such and such country doesn't do this or we're going to hit them with trade sanctions. Have you ever seen a sanction work?

No, never.

What's the theory? So, okay, thank you, Leon.

I don't. Yeah, I don't believe that. I think, I think you engage in a trade war, nobody comes out a winner, everybody loses. Now, it's not to say that you shouldn't be tough, you shouldn't negotiate, you know, and be tough negotiators and use whatever leverage you can in those negotiations. But I think to, to engage in a trade war really not only damages the relationship, not only hurts people who depend on trade, but what it does in the end is it makes matters worse. I don't think the agreement we came out with with China is a band aid agreement. It's trying to get us past November, get us past November, get us past the immediate consequences of a full scale trade war. I am a believer, and it goes back to my time in the Congress. I'm a believer that if you, if you want to accomplish something, the best way to accomplish it is to engage in negotiations and stay there as long as it takes to get what you want.

But what's in your bag of tricks? What do you negotiate? So you can't negotiate a sanction. You can't use low yield nuclear weapons.

No. I mean, there's lots of threats out there. You always have the sanction threat, you always have the trade war threat. But I think the bigger incentive is not the threat of how much harm can I do to you. I think the bigger threat is what can I do to offer you something that will make your economy and your people stronger.

Oh, so we're talking carrots, not sticks.

Yeah, I'm a believer in carrots. I believe you always have sticks. You keep sticks in the closet, though. And you talk about how everybody can benefit from the trade relationship because in the end, that's what both countries want to do. That's what most countries want to do, is benefit from the trade relationship. Okay.

This past week we basically saw everybody go batshit because of the bug in the Iowa election app, and yet no one seems to care or go batshit, at least about Russian interference. So I don't understand that. Tell me that you know, that somebody at the DOD or CIA were retaliating. I mean, what. What, like, just from the outside looking in, like, I don't understand. We're not doing anything. We're just saying, oh, Russians are interfering. Oh, but the Iowa election app, that's the end of democracy. What am I missing, Leon?

Well, you're missing. You're missing a lot of politics.

Okay, I don't understand.

You're missing politics. And I think that when the Iowa Democratic Party, for whatever reason, came up with the wrong app or didn't test the app and screwed up the reporting on the caucuses, what they did was they handed the Republicans a weapon in which the Republicans basically said, these guys are incompetent. The Democrats are incompetent. If you can't trust them to count votes and do it the right way, how can you trust them to govern? And that's. I mean, so, yeah, it became a real political weapon to beat up the Democrats. Now, on the fundamental issue of how do we trust our election process today so that every American who goes to the poll and casts his or her vote knows that ultimately it counts, I think a lot of questions have been raised about the ability of our system to be able to deliver one man, one vote. And part of it is due to what happened with The Russians in 2016. The Russians. The Russians understood probably for the first time because we've always had cyber. We've always had the ability to hack. We've always had the ability to be able to screw things up using that technology. But the Russians really decided to use cyber in an effective way to undermine the credibility of an election. And they did it very effectively. And I think they did it in 2018, and I think they're going to do it in 2020. And part of the fear, even though I think the majority of the vast majority of leadership in the country, Republican and Democrat, understand what the Russians are up to and want to prevent it from happening. And I know law enforcement and intelligence agencies are trying to watch it, but the fundamental problem is that the President of the United States has not denounced what the Russians are doing, and when the president doesn't denounce, undermines our ability to really provide effective enforcement.

That's not very reassuring.

No, it wasn't intended to be. I mean, it wasn't intended to be.

There's not a room full of, like, in. In Donald Trump's worth 400 pound people like working on hacking Russia right now.

I mean, I mean, I think it's very hit and miss. I think the intelligence agencies care a lot about it. I think the FBI cares a lot about integrity. I think there are states that are very concerned about trying to protect the integrity of their elections. So there are a lot of levels of government that are trying to do it. But is there that kind of singular focus from the Washington level, from the presidential level, that keeps reminding people that this is happening and that we're doing everything necessary to stop it? You don't hear that from President Trump.

It seems to me that he and Mitch McConnell, they're conflicted.

I mean, yeah, they're conflicted. They're the bad guy. It's about power.

Yeah.

If everything is about power and you don't care how you protect or develop that power, then everything's for sale. And that's what we've been through with impeachment, and that's what we're going through with regards to enforcing election laws now.

In where we are. What do you teach kids about the democratic process?

The most important thing I think that young people need to know is that they have to be involved, they have to care, and they have to believe that they can make a difference. Those are the important points to make with young people, is that if you know, and what I tell them, frankly, is don't get caught in this polarizing trap between everybody's good on this side and everybody's bad on that side. What you have to do is understand that the only way our system works is if we're willing to sit down, to listen to one another and to work together to try to solve the problems we confront. That's what democracy is based on. If you don't believe in that process, democracy will fail. So in many ways, what I want young people to do is to represent kind of the future, the future of our country. They do. But when I was a student, I really thought that leadership in Washington was a good thing. I looked up to that and I thought that I had role models in government. I had John Kennedy, I had, you know, people who Mike Mansfield, Tom Kickle, I had people who I knew were doing their damnedest to represent the best in this country. Those are the examples. That's frankly, what inspired me to get involved in, in political life was because I really felt I could see what they were doing and really felt they could make a difference and that I could make a difference. And so that's what I'm trying to say to young people is, you can make a difference, but you have to be involved. You have to be interested in how our democracy functions and how it's supposed to work. I mean, you know, we have a class that we teach for law students from Santa Clara. And the reason I teach it is because in many ways, governing is becoming a lost art form in this country. Governing is. I mean, it is the essential ingredient to making our system of government work. Why? Because it's the only way you solve problems. And the ability to be willing to listen to the other side, to hear what they're thinking. And I tell them, this is good for you as a lawyer. It's not just good for you as a citizen. It's good for you a lawyer. You got to know what the other side is thinking. You have to know what motivates. The world is not all black and white. Most of it is gray. And what they're saying has a degree of validity to it that you need to understand. And it has to be part of your chemistry to then say, okay, this is what I believe. This is what they believe. Where is it that we can come together to try to make, you know, to make both of us feel like we're moving the ball forward? And that process is an art form. That's what I was taught when I was in Congress. That's how I got things done. They don't do that now. They don't have that process because they refuse to sit there and listen to one another. When I send those students we have back to Washington in the program that provides an internship for them, what I tell them is, I don't give a damn whether you're a Republican or Democrat, but do not fall into the trench warfare that's now happening in Washington. I want you to rise above that, to look at both sides, to understand what's going on. Doesn't mean you don't have your beliefs about what's right for this country. Sure you do. We all do. But you have to say, how do I take those beliefs and move this country in the right direction? And you can't do that alone. No president, even this president, can slam dunk everything he wants to get done.

Clearly.

Can't do it. Yeah. And Congress, as members of Congress, you can't do it either. So it takes a willingness to sit down, to listen, and to develop consensus. And you know what? In the end, what you produce may not be everything you wanted, but you produce something good for the country. Okay? That is the reward. You get really in politics. It's the ability to move the country step by step in the right direction.

Now you know why the temptation to use low yield nuclear weapons may lead to disastrous outcomes. Secretary Panetta is truly an American patriot who deserves the country's heartfelt gratitude. I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is the Remarkable People podcast. My heartfelt gratitude to Jeff C. Peg Fitzpatrick and Marley Morgan. Special mahalo to Neal driving Ms. Daisy Pearlberg and longboarder Hillary Bryant, who both made this interview possible. This is remarkable people.