AMANPOUR: You've also got an issue, obviously, that those who are producing and manufacturing are doing so not necessarily having to hire more workers because of the increasing technologization of the workforce. A, is that going to be structural problem going forward? And, B, is this 8 percent or 9 percent the new normal of unemployment in this country?
REICH: Christiane, there is a deeper structural problem. Even if you did all of the necessary stimulus, and spending, and had an exemption program for the first $20,000 of income from the payroll tax, did the WPA, you still have a deep structural issue, and that is, when so much of the nation's income and wealth now go to the top 1 percent, the vast middle class doesn't have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going. And we can't rely only on exports.
Now, that's going to take time to do something about. I hope Republicans are as concerned about inequality of income as some of the rest of us. But we're not going to get it by lowering tax -- marginal taxes on the rich. We have to do the opposite.
SHELBY: We're talking about real income tax reform to give people incentives to create jobs and give them confidence to create jobs. But if you look at history, it's the free markets that's going to create and turn this economy around. The government stimulus will never turn the economy around.
KARL: Well, there's a political reality on the tax reform, which is -- you know it's not going to happen before the next election. I mean, the White House -- you know, what I'm hearing is we will see a white paper come out with this plan for corporate tax reform, lowering rates, cutting loopholes, reducing loopholes. But, you know, even the people most enthusiastically pushing this say there's just no way in this political environment it gets down.
AMANPOUR: All right. I'm afraid that's the last word.
SHELBY: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: We'll continue this conversation, because it is number one on America's agenda.
And up next, the Sunday funnies. And we discuss women, politics and power in the era of men behaving badly.
AMANPOUR: And now, the Sunday funnies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FALLON: It's been a crazy few days. First, Weiner admitted that he tweeted out that photo of his crotch and John Edwards was indicted for covering up an affair, or as Arnold Schwarzenegger put it, "Thank you, God. This is the best week ever."
FERGUSON: It is a great day for America, but it is not a great day for New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. These are the kind of days you live for, when you have a job like me. It's like when Cheney shot his lawyer in the face. That was like, "Oh, yeah!"
LENO: President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have agreed to play a round of golf together. Oh, please. Imagine two them at the end of that golf game? Boehner will be crying over his score, and Obama will be giving three explanations as to why his score is actually better than it appears.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And up next, sex, power and politics, and one intriguing question: If women ran the show, what would they do?
AMANPOUR: The country watched transfixed this week as disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner finally confessed to some pretty sleazy behavior. In politics these days, it's an all-too-familiar story. Here's ABC's John Donvan.
DONVAN (voice-over): What can he say, really, at a moment like this that hasn't been said before? Because you put together the words of Clinton and Hart and Gingrich and Sanford and Edwards and Arnold and Spitzer and Lee and Vitter and Ensign, and on and on, and the congressman really had the whole transgression, accusation, negation, concession, confession script written out for him in advance, from caught to mea culpa, from round one, denial, when he said...
WEINER: My system was hacked. I was pranked.
DONVAN: Was he not invoking this?
CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
DONVAN: Or this?
EDWARDS: The story is false. It's completely untrue and ridiculous.
DONVAN: Or this?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I realize that it is campaign trickery, and it is dirty campaigning.
DONVAN: And when he did fess up, finally, with tears...
WEINER: I'm deeply sorry for the pain this has caused my wife, Huma, and our family.
DONVAN: Had we not seen that before, too?
SANFORD: I hurt you all. I hurt my wife. I hurt my boys.
DONVAN: Of course, the "wife by your side" factor shapes what you say. Wife by side...
SPITZER: I apologize first and, most importantly, to my family.
DONVAN: Wife not by his side.
GINGRICH: I have made mistakes in my life.
DONVAN: And this wife, in an earlier chapter, actually went out there alone.
SHRIVER: You can listen to all the negativity and you can listen to people who have never met Arnold, or you can listen to me.
DONVAN: Though in the end, of course, only last month, he was out there alone.
SCHWARZENEGGER: We both love each other very much. We're taking one day at a time.
DONVAN: Now, maybe if some of these guys hadn't been so quick to judge the transgressions of others...
CRAIG: It's a bad buy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy.
DONVAN: ... maybe it wouldn't always have to end like this.
CRAIG: It is with sadness and deep regret that I announce that it is my intent to resign from the Senate.
DONVAN: And, in fact, it doesn't always end careers if you can pull off the hail Mary "I messed up" bad speech, which roughly goes like this.
HART: I've made some mistakes. I've said so.
ENSIGN: This is how dangerous the feeling of power and adulation can be.
WEINER: This is a weakness, a deep weakness that I have demonstrated. And...
CLINTON: I must put it right. And I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.
DONVAN: When you consider the fact that he's running for president, he's got a TV show, he was re-elected, he is an elder statesman, there may well be second acts to those men who find the right words. You wonder, of course, would women politicians get the same second chance? But then they don't seem to get in this sort of hot water, do they?
I'm John Donvan for "This Week" in Washington.
AMANPOUR: And, no, they don't. You'd be hard-pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days, which begs the question, what if there were more women in politics and in positions of power? Would they change the way business is done from Wall Street to Washington and beyond?
We decided to explore that issue this morning with Torie Clarke, the former assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in the Bush administration, with Cecilia Attias, the former first lady of France who was married to president Nicolas Sarkozy, and she is the founder of Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women, and ABC's Claire Shipman, author of "Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules For Success."
So this is a great moment to discuss something that we always try to discuss. What would parity mean? We're not trying to say that if it was all women and not men the world would be different. We're trying to understand, would there be a difference in attitude, in behavior, in results?
So let me start with you. You think this might be actually a good moment for women, this scandal?
CLARKE: I do. In politics, in the public sector, often women are seen as more honest, more sincere, those -- harder-working, all of which I think is true, so this may be an opportunity for more women to step into those positions. But I'm thinking -- you know, yes, we want parity in so many ways. Where we don't want parity is that when they get to those positions and they get the power and adulation that Senator Ensign was talking about, we don't want them to behave in the same way. So I want parity of a certain kind, and I'm very hopeful that women do achieve more of these positions, they're not going to engage in the same kind of behavior.
AMANPOUR: It is interesting you say that, because there has been a study done in the Netherlands about power and suggesting, by polling, you know, perhaps women might behave that way if there were as many of them in power. But I want to ask you because you've written a book specifically about this, and there is a lot of research that talks about what the effect on society is of more women in various areas of power.
SHIPMAN: It's interesting, Christiane, because one woman I've really been watching is Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, who may soon be the head of the IMF. And she has been talking about this for a number of years. She's been sounding the alarm about the perils of too much testosterone in a room.
And it's true. What you find -- there are half-a-dozen major studies that show the more women you have at a company, the more senior women, the more money it makes. There are studies -- there was a recent study that was done from 2000 to 2009 about women hedge fund managers. They doubled the rate of success of their hedge funds compared to male-managed hedge funds. And they manage this way. They don't manage -- the hedge funds don't go up and down.
There's also an economist at the University of Michigan who has studied diversity and decision-making and has found that, in every business decision, diversity leads to better decisions. In other words, a group of all white men are not going to reach the best decisions.
AMANPOUR: Well, you mentioned Christine Lagarde. Before I get to you, I just want to put up a sound, because I did actually interview her a few months ago, and I actually asked her about this very notion. I said, does it make a difference? You are a woman. You've been in positions of power. Does it make a difference, being a woman in a position of power? And she said yes. And here's why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAGARDE: We inject less libido, less testosterone.
AMANPOUR: Less libido?
LAGARDE: Yes, we don't necessarily project our egos into cutting a deal. I honestly believe that there is a majority of women in such positions that approach power, decision-making processes, and other people in the business relationship in a slightly different manner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Her point was, there's no sort of zero-sum game when it comes to negotiations.
ATTIAS: But to raise that point, don't you think we have, first, to go back to the grassroots? To get the women to those positions, we just have to facilitate their life before. I mean, when you are...
AMANPOUR: Make it easier for them?
ATTIAS: Of course. You have -- when you're a woman, you have three lives. You're a woman, you're a mother, you're a worker. OK, so we have to try to help them to be able to get to those positions. And that's why I think we have to take the problem at the very beginning, at the very start.
ATTIAS: Yes, if not, if you have some kids and you want to have the kids, you have to -- I mean, it has to be easier for you to get back to work afterwards. So we have to go, first, the first step. That means make life easy for women and then to be able to get to those responsibilities and...
AMANPOUR: Which a lot of the foundations are trying to do. But let me ask you, Cecilia, you were the first lady of France. And it's obviously -- as we've seen and we know -- and I've traveled there a lot -- a country with very different attitudes about sex and politics and what's private and what's not. And we've seen the issue of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
I want to ask you, after the first shock of that in France, have attitudes there -- are they starting to change? You know, the French were very angry, as you know, about him being walked in public, him with the handcuffs. But women now are beginning to say, hang on a second, this is giving us a chance to speak out against this kind of thing.
ATTIAS: I don't think it's Dominique Strauss-Kahn case that changes it, the mentality in France. That change -- for us, we are not used to see people in court. We're not allowed to have pictures, videos, or whatever, images of court. OK? So that was very shocking for French people.
What has been changed today is that, of course, there is as much women -- you know that we have a low a few years ago, but of the parity. The parity laws, that means as much women of -- and men in the government. Alain Juppe, who was prime minister at that time, of what we call the Juppete (ph). That means half-women, half-men in his government. It didn't work. It didn't work, why? Because we were choosing the women because she was a female, not because she was good.
So I think the mentality has to change. And, I mean, the world is half-women, half-men. And the government has to be the reflect of the world. And, I mean, the CEOs -- when you think in the Fortune 500, there is only 15 women.
AMANPOUR: Right, and down from what it was.
ATTIAS: Absolutely. So the mentality is changing now, because you have -- I mean, the instant news, so you know instantly what's going on in the world. So -- and the laws have to protect the women.
AMANPOUR: Right. Now, I'm fascinated by what you are saying about how it's not just about parity and equality for the sake of it, but it means economic success.
SHIPMAN: And this is why, you know, we all laughed a little bit when we heard Christine Lagarde talk about libido, testosterone. This is real. I mean, they have done studies now -- Cambridge University did a fascinating study about the fact that bond traders, when they were making risky decisions, had higher levels of testosterone.
There's something about a group of men and testosterone, you know, making risky decisions that's very real. Governments around the world recognize this. There's a reason why Norway mandates 40 percent of board members need to be women. England is moving in that direction. France has just done that. There's a real...
AMANPOUR: Board -- boards on top companies.
SHIPMAN: Boards, corporate boards. I mean, there's a real sense that we need a balance in decision-making.
CLARKE: Don't you think, in a very practical sense, very often I know -- I've got two boys. Very often, men will compete for the sake of competition. It almost doesn't even matter what happens. And you can see guys within a company competing with one another all the time, often to see who can get to the top of the food chain, versus women more often will say, "I'm going to get in there and let's get this done." And you go from first person singular to the plural.
AMANPOUR: So an analyst, in fact, a researcher has said that the short hand of this is that women run for office to do something and men run for office to be somebody.
CLARKE: Absolutely. I think that is absolutely right. And you just listen to different members of Congress and how they talk. Very often -- and I've studied this, because I'm always studying the information aspects of this -- the female members of Congress (inaudible) this is what we're trying to get done. This is where we want to be five years from now versus a male member of Congress -- and you can track this -- will say, "Here's what I want to do."
AMANPOUR: If we travel aboard and go to Africa, one of the things that stunned me is Rwanda, obviously, had that terrible genocide some 16 years ago, and since then has been resurgent basically on the backs of the women. Half or more of the parliament is women. More than half of Kagame's cabinet is women. And in every indicator -- health, economics, everything -- they're doing better than the rest of their area.
CLARKE: And this is where I think the information age can be extraordinarily helpful. Whereas 10, 15, 20 years ago it was easy to ignore there weren't enough women in the boardroom or it was easy to ignore bad behavior or turn a blind eye to it. In the information age now, nothing is hidden, absolutely nothing is hidden.
AMANPOUR: And, Cecilia, in societies they say that the health of the community and the country you can measure by the health of the women, whether it's real health or financial health.
ATTIAS: Yeah, absolutely. But I want to add something to what you were saying. In Africa, it's like that, but look at Spain. Spain, half of the government is women. In Spain, I mean, in all levels, you have women. But if you see domestic violence in Spain, it's one woman dying every three days of domestic violence. So there is...
AMANPOUR: So it's about the laws probably, right?
ATTIAS: Yes, it's about the laws. So I think we have to really think about those laws that protect women, and then they will be able to achieve.
SHIPMAN: But don't you have a sense, also, that I think that this -- I thought that what Peggy said was so true. This does feel, in some sense to me, like the last gasp of something, these last five or six months, with example after example. Your question you asked at the beginning, would women in power do the same thing? No. We might have other problems, if we were, you know, lawmakers...
CLARKE: ... wouldn't have the time, because we're too busy doing all this...
ATTIAS: But don't you think it has been that for centuries? Don't you think it was -- look, Felix Faure, our French president in 1899, died in the arms of his mistress. Don't you think it's a problem...
AMANPOUR: You've watched your own husband on the campaign trail and how women approached him.
ATTIAS: Absolutely. I mean, they're very much attracted by power. And so women giving their phone numbers to him, even if I was just next to him. I mean, don't you think it's a problem that -- I mean, it's for centuries.
SHIPMAN: I do...
ATTIAS: Now we know about it.
SHIPMAN: What's interesting, too, is that -- how do men feel about women in power? The opposite, by the way. They don't like powerful women. So I don't think women -- but I also think there's just less tolerance now. Women -- we're running companies in large masses. We don't have a lot of seats in Congress. But we are there in the middle, and we're there in upper management, and the power we have is masses of women now means this is not tolerated. I just think we're in a different era.
ATTIAS: I think we really have to -- I mean, they have to accept who we are and to accept our behavior. I mean, we're doing a session in my foundation in the New York forum next week. And, I mean, we had so much trouble to find men CEO accepting to talk about that. I mean, it was such an issue.
AMANPOUR: And this is a conversation that can go on and on.
ATTIAS: I know.
AMANPOUR: And when we come back, a turning point at the Pentagon and in America's nearly 10-year war in Afghanistan. We know that troops will soon be coming home, but just how many? This week, the debate heats up.
AMANPOUR: And now to the war in Afghanistan. We know this much. President Obama will soon reduce the number of American troops there. But just how many? It's the subject of fierce debate in Washington, where Democratic leaders want to withdraw more troops than the Pentagon recommends. And it is, of course, a matter of deep concern on the front lines of the war zone.
Martha Raddatz recently traveled to Afghanistan and filed this report.
RADDATZ (voice-over): The calls from politicians and pundits in Washington for a substantial and rapid drawdown of U.S. forces echo only faintly in the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan. Soldiers and Marines from top generals and to front-line troops worry that much work remains to be done here.
RODRIGUEZ: I think in certain selective areas that, you know, we'll be here for a while.
RADDATZ: Lieutenant General David Rodriguez is just completing a tour, running the day-to-day operations of the war. He says American troops will be required for quite some time.
RODRIGUEZ: I can see people here past 2014. So it will take a while for the Afghans to really build the capacity enough that they can do it on themselves.
RADDATZ: We recently visited a small outpost in the Peche Valley that had been under mortar fire just before our arrival. We were with Major General John Campbell on his last battlefield tour along the treacherous border with Pakistan.
(on-screen): In all the mood, how do you convince people that you should keep going here?
CAMPBELL: Well, I'd tell them to take a look at the progress we've had over the last year. I tell them to take a look at we haven't had another 9/11 since we've had forces on the ground here. I think that's key. It takes time with this counterinsurgency fight.
RADDATZ: The counterinsurgency efforts may, indeed, be working here. There's lots of progress to be seen. But counterinsurgency takes lots of troops, lots of time, and lots of money.
VOLESKY: With men like you, Afghanistan has nothing but a great future.
RADDATZ (voice-over): Recently promoted to brigadier general, Gary Volesky was in Iraq during some of the worst fighting there. That insurgency was eventually tamed and security turned over to local forces and essential government. He says the same needs to happen here.
VOLESKY: What we have to do is partner closely with our Afghan counterparts and get them more capable and pull that government to the people and build that institution. And I see it happening every day.
RADDATZ: The soldiers in the trenches are eager to go home, but they, too, think there's more to be accomplished. Three local schoolchildren were wounded in the recent mortar attack here.
DE LA ROCHE: We need to stay for them, because a lot of those kids that grow up, we want to give them an opportunity to live without fear for -- just walking to school, for example, and that can change a country.
RADDATZ: And at the other end of the chain of command, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is stepping down soon, assured NATO allies on Friday that the U.S. is in no hurry to make major cuts in combat forces.
GATES: I can tell you there will be no rush to the exits. The vast majority of the surge forces that arrived over the past two years will remain through the summer fighting season.
AMANPOUR: And Martha Raddatz joins me now.
Martha, we know that the top levels of the military are comfortable with somewhere around 5,000 to 10,000 leaving this summer, but the White House, Capitol Hill, Democrats, they want a lot more. How is this going to play out?
RADDATZ: Well, I think you'll see us going back to 2009, when the debate was about, how do you fight this war? Is counterinsurgency the best strategy? As I said in the piece, it's very expensive. It takes a long time.
Just last November, General David Petraeus said we're really at the beginning of the timetable for a successful counterinsurgency, which is 9 to 10 years. The American public does not have the patience for leaving huge numbers...
AMANPOUR: And top administration officials don't -- I mean, the vice president doesn't want that. The national security adviser...
RADDATZ: Senator John Kerry -- there is going to be a lot of pushback on this and a lot of debate. And you've president Barack Obama, who just decided to go in and kill Osama bin Laden, he is far more seasoned in the national security arena, so I think you can see a lot heavier pushback to the military.
Obviously, the military wants to stay. They want to see this through. They're there on the ground. They're losing buddies every day. But I do think you'll see a bit of a clash here.
AMANPOUR: Let's go again to Secretary Gates, who issued a very uncharacteristically blunt warning to the NATO alliance...
RADDATZ: Yes, he did.
AMANPOUR: ... historic alliance between the United States of America and Europe, saying that if they didn't pull their weight, this whole thing was going to collapse. Let's just run a little bit of what he said to the Europeans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GATES: The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the United States Congress and in the American body politic writ large to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Martha, obviously we all know the United States does much of the heavy lifting in NATO. But here's the question. How can Secretary Gates expect the Europeans to be serious about Libya, which he didn't want to go into and which they're pulling all their weight, even about Afghanistan, when they can see the United States wants to get out? I mean, how does he make that argument now, when the U.S. is showing that it wants out?
RADDATZ: Well, I think the argument is we're in together, we're out together. If the U.S. starts gradually pulling down, he wants the allies to start gradually pulling down. Unfortunately, these statements were made as he's going out the door. There's been pretty much dead silence from the allies about this speech, so we'll have to see whether it really has an effect.
AMANPOUR: Martha, thank you so much.
RADDATZ: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And we'll be right back with "In Memoriam."
AMANPOUR: And now, "In Memoriam." We remember all of those who died in war this week. The Pentagon released the names of 18 soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We'll be right back.