You all get a gold star for supervening the security in the building and being on time. We know there will be some stragglers but that is to be expected. I am jane harman, the president and ceo of the Wilson Center. I have to say it is hard to seem hard to sound hopeful about the subject we will address after the past week. Hundreds were gunned down last night in las vegas. I do not think we know yet what the gunmans motives were. Two women were stabbed to death in front of the train station in an isise by sympathizer, and there seems to be an unprecedented disconnect between our secretary of state and president on the strategy to walk north korea back on threats of nuclear war. Vice president pence was here a few months ago, he is an old friend of mine from our congress days. He told us the president s strategy of America First does not mean america alone. At the Wilson Center, we all hope Vice President pence is right. This is the fourth time the ambassador and the Chicago Council are here to release their survey of American Public opinion. It is a Great Partnership between the Wilson Center and the Chicago Council and in the parlance of this new report, we have an enduring alliance. It is also reassuring to learn good news in this report that americans continue to support an active u. S. Role in Foreign Affairs. Much of the vision for that role started with woodrow wilson, who was our 28th president , our only phd president , and who was serving 100 years ago today. Downstairs in our memorial hall, you all passed by there, wilsons words are inscribed. About his decision and that was controversial even to him, to bring america into world war i, he said and it really resonates now it is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war. But the right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts. For democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government. For a universal dominion of right by such concert of free people as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. At times like this as the audience in this room and online know, the center into the Chicago Council we think are needed more than ever to connect this scholarship and thought leadership to the global challenges we face. Welcome to our panel today washington the post , from the Chicago Council and congressman Mike Gallagher, a very able newbie in the United States congress from wisconsin. But first, before our panel starts, a brief video. President trump from this day forward, it is going to be only America First. America first. President trumps inaugural address, like his campaign, signals a departure from the last seven decades of american policy. They prescribed greater protection and trade, financial reckoning with our security allies, tightening borders, and withdrawing from Major International agreements. The 2017 chicago survey conducted for six months tested the appeal of these ideas among the American Public. President trump has criticized allies and argued that u. S. Alliances were not serving american interests. Americans believe maintaining existing alliances and building alliances are among the best tools. In addition, 69 say it is essential to security and for the first time majoritys of americans are willing to use u. S. Troops to defend south korea and to defend nato allies if they are invaded by russia. Compared to one euro ago, record compared to a year ago record numbers of americans now Say International trade is good for economy, for u. S. Consumers, and for job creation. In fact, perceived benefits of all Political Party affiliations. President trump has blamed trade deals for loss of a american jobs. On this, the majority of americans agree. Six in 10 say manufacturing jobs are lost due to outsourcing. Yet more americans say the Current Administration policies will harm rather than help u. S. Workers. Immigration was a central issue in the 2016 campaign, and remains a key pillar in President Trumps platform. 37 of americans cared to rise immigration as a critical threat. There are large differences between democrats and republicans. Among trumps supporters, nearly all see immigration as a threat. As the perceived threat from immigration has gone down, support for evidence to become citizens goes up. An increase from 57 in 2016. Conducted just weeks after President Trump withdrew paris from the climate agreement, results show six and 10 americans continue to favor u. S. Participation in the agreement. Overall, 46 of americans now consider Climate Change a critical threat. While not a majority, it marks an alltime high for the issue. 69 of democrats consider Climate Change a critical threat. The 2016 survey results show the attitudes that put donald trump and to the white house are longstanding and could strengthen once he was in office, yet the 2017 survey finds instead the ideas behind America First have not spread much beyond his court supporters. The politically challenged environment this past year, americans express enduring support for World Affairs and maintaining security of alliances, and key instances, americans have doubled on these. Public support has risen to new highs when it comes to defending allies, perceived benefits of trade, and a desire to grant undocumented workers citizenship. There are large differences between republicans who support donald trump and those who do not. Nontrump republicans are much closer to mainstream issues on these ideas. In the end, rather than embrace orientation of Foreign Policy, most americans recognize value and maintaining traditional security and trade relationships. [end video] good morning. Thank you for being here. To summarize, the poll indicates that while trumps core supporters remain supportive of his Foreign Affairs position, tighter borders, withdrawal from international agreements, those views have not really resonated with the majority of americans. In need many cases, fewer americans even among republicans support those views than they did a year ago. So, we found that more americans believe that existing alliances should be maintained. That International Trade is good for the economy. And for consumers like you and creating jobs. Fewer see immigration as a threat. So i want to ask each of you what you think is resonating with these views. What is the reasoning behind it . Is it that more americans are now paying attention to International Issues because conventional wisdom has been challenged . They have learned more about those issues as trump has addressed them . Or maybe they see those policies as being successful, that tight control of immigration has actually reduced the threat from immigration. Jane, why dont you start . Thank you karen. Hello again everybody. This panel obviously is a really impressive and i do not know that my views should be first it let me just raise a question. About the methodology. I did look at it and tried to figure it out at the polling was so off, most of the polls worse off during the election, my question is, did you really adequately poll trumps base . Even today in the new york times, there is a huge article about Donald Trumps views still resonating with his base. Maybe not with others. My first question is, what is your methodology . But i would say americans are smart. I always used to say my constituents were the smartest, as they were but they made very good judgments about who to send to congress. But a lot of people now especially with the advent of social media are very connected in the world and they their views i think are not necessarily shaped by what happens at a White House Press conference, there views are shaped by the people they know, the troubles they may come of the information they read. I think that is a good thing. I think there is a layered sense of getting information in this country. Some social media is an echo chamber on both ends. What i think a lot of people are smart and getting their information from many sources and that is good for america because i frankly think the views that you reveal in your polls are solid, mainstream views. That both parties should embrace. Maybe if you could also explain how you differentiated between republicans and Trump Supporters, for trumps supporters. We had some slides that were just up. It actually has the full methodology. There are ways you can measure. The way we be cited to define it was in a strict sense that we look at those people who have a very favorable opinion of donald trump, and that was about 26 of the overall public. And, then we also looked more closely adjusted republicans who at just republicans who had a very favorable view of donald trump. We found some interesting differences between what we call trump republicans versus nontrump republicans. There are a lot of different ways you can look at who said they voted for donald trump and we know most people when they vote they are motivated by partisan allegiances. Nine and 10 republicans ended up voting for donald trump even though they did not vote for him in the primaries. So that is how we decided to define them. When you look at overall Approval Ratings for donald trump it is about 36 or 37 percent and again, not all of those people necessarily have a favorable view of him. So that is the way we decided to do it, and it seemed to bear out. I think one of the key findings, one of the reasons we wanted to look at the differences between what we call core Trump Supporters, that is those who have a highly favorable view of the president , this would be late june, early july, and the rest to the extent to which a message from the president and his Foreign Policy messages are resonating among his base. The answer is they are resonating extraordinarily well, so our findings are very consistent with the idea that the president is maintaining his base in a very strong way. Secondly, where is the nonbase going . The striking finding, maybe not if you are living in the washington bubble per se, but the striking finding overall drained or undrained as they say is that there is a 7075 of americans who do not have a highly favorable view of trump. That does not mean they have an unfavorable view but they do not have a highly favorable view. That 70 has a pretty coherent worldview. There are differences between democrats and republicans and independents, but those differences are all much smaller than the differences between trumpnd the core supporters. Americans are resonating with those who have a highly favorable view of the president and the traditional foreign policies i would describe as being proalliance, profair trade, prointernational agreements, the kind of Foreign Policy we have conducted since 1945 as a broad bipartisan support behind it. That is an important finding because it means the world may not necessarily be changing as significantly, at least in the public sense, as the debate seems to indicate that we read in our newspapers and on our twitter feed. I want to add the other thing is that views that motivate the Trump Supporters immigration, what came out in our 2016 survey that immigration and trade were where people who supported donald trump or different in their view several the public but this has this disaffection in terms of our immigration policy and the fear of immigrants from republicans and the concern for jobs being a public concern and not an elite concern. That has been there for years, decades. So even without donald trump, these supporters, these people who hold these views, were still present in the population. It is just that donald trump was willing to voice his concerns and tap into their grievances in a way that no other candidate had done before. Something that is important, i would agree, i think while the average voter probably could not articulate to you why they think nafta is deficient, would suspect your average member of congress could articulate that to you. They do have a sense i think, and gut level sense of one things are not going well. I do think the International Environment has become sufficiently strong to the point, you know, never heard anyone in the context of my Campaign Come up to me and say im really concerned about the erosion of the rulesbased war. Nobody ever came up to me and said in the wake of orlando and everything we are seeing a broad, is it safe to go to a packers game . I heard that hundreds of times. I would submit that if our position in the world, the state of American Leadership of language to the point where they filed, reaches lambeau sealed, then we have a problem that the average voter can understand. I think donald trump tapped into that quite effectively but i would also agree that there are some good news in that survey to the extent we have brought bipartisan majority, 66 of democrats. 65 of republicans supported active American Leadership. That is a great thing. And digging into the numbers of top supporters, only 40 of core Trump Supporters say we should not exercise greater control. 64 of trumps core supporters say we should be the dominant role player and the far more saying isolation. Some version of american hegemony which i think is more like a jacksonian reaction being attacked, it is sort of an instinctive understanding where we are number one, the world is safer. To be safer and stronger we need to support our friends and punish our enemies. Simple as that. I think donald trump tapped into that. One of the things that surprised me about the survey, those majorities are quite high including to defend allies, although i was surprised to defend europe against russia was considerably lower than the willingness to defend south korea against north korea. People believe that the United States is the most influential country in the world. Alliances are the way to maintain that influence and that influence should be maintained. How does that coincide with views or the policy of the administration, that we should pull back, how do people reconcile that in their mind or how should they reconcile that, that pulling that will not only maintained that will increase influence since thats what they want. Who wants to let me take a stab at that. There are two things going on. There is a general support who believe alliances are an effective thing. A highly effective tool of american Foreign Policy, it is in the high 70s, low 80s in terms of the view that alliances are an effective way to help america achieve its foreignpolicy goals and that is reflected in the strong views of asia and europe. At the same time, Trump Supporters believe it has been too long for the United States to bear most of the burden and it is time for them to do more. A sentiment americans have shared since about 1952 and has been part of American Folklore at the administrative level to get allies to pay more. I spent three years banging my head on the table, not always successful. The president has made a very big issue for allies to be more defense. We tested the proposition of should the United States threatened to uphold its cookman mid commitment to get them to pay more, or should we use the former traditional way of diplomacy and Trump Supporters overwhelmingly think we should withhold commitment but other supporters and nontrump republicans and democrats and independents tend to think about 60 that we should use diplomacy. This is a valid debate we are having. To what extent can the United States use its power and leverage . To get allies to pay more for defense . I think what this is showing is that maybe the fact that the president is unconventional, maybe those are the kinds of tactics that will get the kinds of results we want to see which is to have more for defense. But to have a more stronger alliance. A couple thoughts. I think he has it about right. But i think the fact that we are engaged in the longest war in history in afghanistan and in over three presidencies there has not been the ability to contain actions by north korea developing a Nuclear Capability has affected all of us, and people are questioning whether traditional policies are working well enough. No, they are not working well enough. I was going to Say Something else about congress. My view is congress fell apart when i left in 2011, but Mike Gallagher is here to resurrect it. Congress has done something lately, insisting on maintaining article five of the nato treaty which the president came around to. First he did not embrace it than he did embrace it and so forth. So it is not just President Trump and whatever he may believe, and his views have shifted some. But there is a coequal branch of government, i will point out, that has people in it with a lot of experience. Mike gallagher does not look 90 years old but he does have extension experience. And, you know, you bring skills there. Voices like yours are very important there. I wanted to quickly say, the reason we came into the examination of alliances is that President Trump has the way he describes it is that the United States should get more out of it, the allies are taking advantage of us. So we asked questions about who benefits the most from alliances. This is our alliances in europe. We tested the idea, lets see if americans think others are getting the better of our alliances. And actually americans do believe by majority that the United States and our allies benefit versus or that they say they United States benefits. There are differences you can see between the partisans but overall the majority believe in alliances as well. So they do seem to understand that we get something, some security benefit, from having these partnerships abroad. For a long time now, poll showed americans thought they were essential to national security. They might not understand all of it. They might not even know about article five but they have a general sense that we are safer because of it. So maybe President Trumps tweets and calling nato obsolete did raise awareness of these issues a little bit. We did not measure that but certainly he got a lot more in conversations than politicians usually do. I want to move on to trade and immigration. First i want to go back to something jane said. Broadly ate congresses influence on these things. It must be said there were a lot of people inside the president S National Security cabinet for confirmation of the commitment. But when you see these figures, you see how people divide up in terms of what they think, could you in the house in particular, could you divide especially republicans up in the same way, is Congress Representatives in this poll . Good question. I would divided differently. In the Republican Caucus there is a divide. There is a divide between leadership and the holy polloi. L hoi then there is a bigger divide on these issues between socalled fiscal hawks and defense. There are a lot of people who consider themselves to do both but then do the math on making difficult choices. We are having a knockdown drag out debate on keeping helicopters in the air versus meals on wheels. But you are not allowed to talk about what drives up the debt. So, i dont know if i would divided quite that way. We need to make a division evaluating data between trump to make sure2. 0, we understand what that is. Trump said a lot of things on the campaign trail. He is taking a different take in office. I do not think his office has been friendly to Vladimir Putin in any meaningful way which i think is a good thing, which is why was very critical of them. The administration are like leaves on the turbulent sea so it is not exactly a new phenomenon to see this happen. I think there is an interesting dichotomy. I think it presents an opportunity for congress to reassert its authority. I think the founders created a leviathan in article one. There is a dichotomy among Trump Supporters about being negative about alliances in general, but they are more positive than any other group about deploying military assets in defense of our allies. 18 Percentage Points more likely in the middle east. Eight Percentage Points more and asia. I understand the middle east but it is more, it is almost as if core Trump Supporters support the concept of extended terms, right . We are not at war in asia, were trying to defend our allies. One footnote i was thinking about, that is the di aspora in congressional districts. When you think about gigantic amounts of european immigrants around for the polls and chicago, i dont know about eastern michigan but i know the dutch are in western michigan. Eastern wisconsin, excuse me. Wherever it may be, i think that does also tend to help members of congress get it about connections to parts of the world. One thing you mentioned earlier, im sorry to go on but maybe this is a selfserving argument. As we see more members of the 9 11 generation, veterans of the war on iraq serve, you are seeing more democrats doing the smart thing i hope that creates a body of people on the left and right that can Work Together of these issues in particular but more broadly. One of the things you said before, which i sort of interpreted as look at what the administration does as opposed to what trump says on some of these issues clearly trump himself has shifted although he tends to revert back to his campaign when he is in front of rallies and stuff, but, you know, rather than see trump he now says we can work with nato, nato is great. Ee see that reflected in cor Trump Supporters. He has moved somewhat on nafta, opting for renegotiation rather than withdrawal although he is recently said he thought they would withdraw. Orehe bringing his c supporters along or are they bringing him to positions . To me, you know, i can only, you know, studied the residency for a while. I believe it is always the president with foreignpolicy issues who is that kind of focal point to can unite the party. The republicans have not nominated a true isolationist since 1936. I know you are out there. I do think, notwithstanding some of the unconventional statements trump made, republicans in general rally around sort of a hawkish criticism of the democratic incumbent. You define yourself in opposition to what the Previous Party has done. That has been true. Truman criticizing roosevelt. Eisenhower criticizing truman. At the end, the president has to give coherency and strategy to that. Maybe we are saying it emerging. I think he has appointed exceptional people, but i have no answer on the twitter thing. My general hypothesis is twitter is making all of us stupid. Even the Trump Supporters are not crazy about his tweeting. I want to move to trade. A significant majority overall believe that International Trade is good for economy, trade, and jobs. Republicans dont traditionally come at this issue from totally different perspective so are democrats being more supportive of International Trade as part of their opposition to donald trump, or have they fundamentally changed their mind on the issue . Im glad you asked that because the trade issue is a little more nuanced. They come at trade in different ways. So right now americans are the most positive they have ever been in terms of our polling on the prospect of trade for being good for the u. S. Economy, consumers like you, and creating jobs in the United States. But will we get to questions but when we get to questions about globalizations, the republicans are really just where they were and democrats are more positive. They seem to be growing more positive every year since 2004 on trade and really big partisan divide on nafta, 53 overall think nafta is good but there is a wide range between republicans and democrats on that. And i think part of that is that republicans are feeling more positive now because the republican government, there is a republican president , and they probably expect that the trade deals will become more favorable toward the United States or in the United States favor. We asked the same about alliances in trade about whether again it is zerosum, this one country went over another. Democrats, independents, say it is whenwin for both sides in a trade agreement, but republicans and especially core Trump Supporters say we are on the losing side of it. I think there is some hope that the current trade agreement might be negotiated to put the United States in a more advantageous place. I would point out as a protrade, prodefense of a democrat, probably one of the few left on the planet earth, that there are two wings in each party and there have been for years. That it has always been difficult and certainly more difficult in the last 10 years to get those wings, to put them together, to get support for trade agreements and which is why we have not seen too many. That is one point. My second point though is that the precipitous withdrawal in my view of tpp sends a message way beyond trade. I think it sent a message to a lot of our friends in asia that we might not anymore want to have the strong Economic Alliance with them which was the bedrock i think of our last president , president obama. Stronger trade relationships with our friends. So in foreignpolicy terms, as well as on the merits, i would argue that probably was ill advised. I think there was also the question about the people, the countries that are on the receiving end of his policies. Both in terms of alliances and trade, we see i know, you know, in latin america for example, certainly in asia, countries where tpp is going off on their own, they are making their own relationships and so the question then becomes, you know, when the United States requesting these views is ready to make deals with them, are they going to be as ready to make deals as they happen in the past or the same kinds of deals we would consider advantageous . On immigration, i was just totally taken aback by the figures where across the board with numbers that have gone up more and more people are in favor of a path to citizenship with immigrants. Im not sure how that relates to the closed border question. Anybody who wants to address that . The poll shows there is, 65 of americans believe there should be up at the citizenship for those who are here illegally. Paying a penalty and waiting a. Of time. It is halfandhalf on those figures. The polarization of the immigration debate is a Political Polarization that may not be happening in the country. It is probably true about a lot of these issues, including trade. Whether fundamental disagreement isnt necessarily reflected in the rest of the country, or people are just trying to get on their desk get on with their daily lives. A have a basic sense of what is right and what is wrong. Particularly when we have a debate about dreamers, we find across the board people want them to stay. They get it. They want to find a path toward citizenship. Important, on the threat immigrants represent from a security perspective to americans, republicans have consistently over the past few 10 believeout six in immigrants and refugees present a threat to the United States. Democrats used to be there as well. Independents used to be there as well. That has sharply decreased over time. That is a very significant change in the way democrats and republicans have looked at immigration over time. You know i have you now have overall, in our polling, who pose a immigrants Security ThreatUnited States. Have stayed very much the same since 2001, and democrats have gone down, showing the degree to which the country is split. I think the interesting thing when i look at immigration numbers is there is a wide disparity between republicans who feel a sense of alarm about this. Republican elites do not. Its interesting that the vocal minority of republicans in , and among the public to, who are active on this issue, have overtaken that topic. Theres a wide disparity in urgency. However, among republicans a majority say there should be a path to citizenship, either with conditions or without. Doesnt for people who are already here. Yes people who are already here and working here. Other polls have shown that when you package enforcement with a path to citizenship there is bipartisan support. As long as theres something put together and has been put together, for both sides, both sets of concerns to balance each other, then there is bipartisan support. I would like to open the floor to questions. If you raise your hand, i will call on you. If you could identify yourself and direct your question to one panelist or to the group in general. Thank you. Im rob with the Wilson Center. To the panel, the data indicates that the strong support for the United States to support south koreas if invaded by the north but the contingency that is being looked at now, it the preventive use of force by the states to prevent north korean acquisition of this livability district the United States with the Nuclear Warhead on a longrange ballistic missile. What is your sense, from the data about that contingency and the latitude given to the president , and since we have a current and former member of congress on the panel, given the prerogatives of congress on declaration of war, the contingency thats being discussed is preventive action, not preemptive action. Whats your sense about Congress Role in all this. Not preemptive action. Whats your sense about Congress Role in all this. I would say at various points in our history we have toyed with this idea of a massive preventive strike like that. Even eisenhower and 53 had a task force examine this was discarded for a variety of reasons. Variety of reasons. I think its a whole order of magnitude. Greater than some of the options on the table like shooting down the next missile they fire which we probably have a 90 likelihood of being able to do. I think there would have to be some consultation with congress, maybe its the gang of eight, because if you open it wider it would devolve into partisan madness, but there would have to be, not just on a constitutional perspective but from a practical perspective, doing something that dramatic, you need buyin from the elected representative to be able to sell it to the american people. Im not sure what even comes close to that. Class comment, as a former member of the gang of eight, that was the chairman and Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee and their leadership which was briefed on covert action i dont were , talking about that here. I do embrace the notion that congress should step up because congress reflects the american people, and have some kind of debate about this. We had here, tim kaine and jeff flake were coauthors of the current most credible version of an authorization to use military force in the middle east talk about that, and what the chances of success were. He said not great, but they are pushing. I think thats the debate congress has to be in. As rob who was our senior Vice President and a world expert on north korean proliferation points out, this would be preventive, a preventive strike. I think thats what you said. Had some credibility in that sense but how we would do it and how the koreans would understand it and what it would lead too, the stakes are really high and the danger of miscalculation is huge. The states are really high. The danger for miscalculation is huge. If i were a current member of congress, and the good news is you are, and im not, if our current member of congress, i would absolutely want to be sure that i personally, and my constituents, understood what the ramifications are of this. When i was working on the Foreign Relations committee, we went to this debate of trying to reexamine how it pertains to our Lethal Action against al qaeda and isis, and im under the opinion that seven days the 17 authorization passed seven days after 9 11 are in need of a nomination. In light of the way in which congress has completely abdicated its responsibility in that domain, its hard for me to envision a scenario in which we muster up the courage to have that debate relative to north korea. I hope that we do, and i do think theres a growing number of members who recognize the importance, but its hard to even carve out the space to have the debate. Maybe we should have it here. Thats right. There has been debate but it hasnt brought the two sides any closer together. In general, and democrats are very much divided on what a new authorization should say, so they have never gotten to the wind of having a bill gotten to the point of having a bill. I mean having a bill get voted on. The committee had a couple years ago gone back and forth on it. When you do an engagement from the president to say this is what we need and this is why, and this is our theory of victory, which we didnt really have with the obama administration. You could tell at the end of the day they were ambivalent, notwithstanding what he said, he said a lot of good things but they werent willing to do it, for whatever reason. Yeah. Yes maam . Is charmainename cruz and i am here with this Chicago Council on Global Affairs entity. I am extremely concerned about the lack of diversity in the representations of americans and particularly in leadership positions. I understand this is something that sort of a lofty soft manner but congressman harman made a very interesting point about the immigrant communities among her constituents having informed her opinion in a manner that is simply receiving policy briefings would not have. Would it not be so much better if it were in fact her colleagues that were american citizens that were immigrants, or muslims were from diverse points of view. One of the things i see over and over again is a leadership, and i do think they legitimately try to gain this perspective and knowledge in a report they can, and they read what they can, but you cannot. Other than interacting with people who come from different parts of the world or are one of those people. What is your opinion on the significance of that, and how we might concretely advance diverse representation and immigrant representation in American Leadership . Im an immigrant. Just so people know. I was born and raised in a different country and we had secretary of state to have been immigrants including two of the most brilliant ones, but the secretary albright secretary kissinger. To the general point, i still think this is the country where frankly the ability of government to get hat and get , including is great the political life of getting elected is higher than almost , any other country in the world. That said, i think the current climate about immigration and the way we been talking about it is deeply worrying and i think its one of the issues that americans can and ought to come together again on. The degree to which representation, even in congress has immigrants as the representatives, whether its original or firstgeneration, its actually quite high. In part because we are now living in a country where the foreignborn population is at the highest level since 1910. Which is a remarkable after the large influx in the 1890s and the earliest parts of the 20th injury. So this is inevitably going to , have an impact on everything we do including on who we elect, goes to the foreign service, who serves in our military, probably the most over, the place where immigrants are represented in larger numbers, and you can probably speak to that as well, the military was a great force of integration for our country in the 1940s and it continues to be a great source of integration while welcoming folks from all walks of life to be part of that. I would just like to congratulate President Trump, i havent said that many times, for appointing nikki haley to be our ambassador to the un. I think it makes a difference that she has an indian background and an immigration story to tell. . I think it helps u. S. Credibility in the un body. I think there are, someone who never thought they would run for office and is new to this, maybe this will sound naive, but it is indeed im a young boring white man and i can talk about this from personal experience but when you try to run for office there are enormous barriers for entry. Unless you can raise a lot of money very quickly, if you are younger person and new to the political scene, it is almost impossible to do it. I got lucky in a lot of different ways that we conduct about later, but i just wrote an oped with a freshman democrat from Silicon Valley who is a Bernie Sanders supporter. He and i will never agree on the role of federal government in healthcare but we agree on the need for reform to get this problem where weather not your mexican immigrant or whatever, it is so hard to run for office successfully in the incumbency advantages are still so strong that we actually have a lower turnover rate and that strikes me as a problem. Were talking about congressional reform earlier. Its very difficult. [laughter] except for the british monarchy. Debts rise. [laughter] we only have a few more minutes, so lets take three questions very quickly and then will try to address all of them. Way in the back. Hello my name is lauren, with , the Chicago Council. This is a question for guzman gallagher. Thank you for your service. My brother served two tours in iraq and im very proud of his service. You cosponsor the Border Security act, and i noted the act uses concepts like Situational Awareness which is i think taken from the national , defense act as well as combining these biometric databases of immigrants with terrorists. What do those concepts represent about your thinking about the change threat . Thats a great question. Lets get a couple questions to back up. Kent hughes, thank you very much for an intriguing panel an interesting result. It used to be that everyone saw this as being good for consumers. You can imagine the average walmart shoppers saying thats a good deal, but when you ask about jobs in the past, usually there is much greater concern. Now you see that difference disappearing. I think we only have two more people with their hand up so lets try to take both of them. I am a recent graduate of the public affairs, this is a question for all of you. It looks like a implication that the numbers you are a part of, that the general Public Opinion, theres significantly, is this going to create. Even more tension between congress and the executive . And finally, yes sir. Thank you. Our rose, concerned citizen. Im concerned about the methodology whenever you seek opinions. Its become clear that more people are using, as her source of information, social media. Im wondering whether you inquired, as part of your methodology, where people got their source of information. Good question. I think this ought to be part of any opinion poll that anybody runs. Great. Mike, do you want to start and talk about the Border Security acts . Sure. So when i was in uniform, i worked for the dea for about a year on narcotics word so i do believe the seven border is not the southern border is not secure and we have to address that fact. Now if you look at the , topography, the geography of all mine sectors, you come away with the conclusion that there are areas where a wall makes no sense and you have to Leverage Technology to create that Situational Awareness. Adjustment to a Drone Company where they are using Tethered Drones that you can put on the back of the truck in for a much lower dollar figure you can get the same thing that you want for higher cost. I think we need to think creatively about that. I will say, we are looking at borders, visa waiver, but the hardest thing im still trying to wrap my head around is the way in which people cross our borders every minute, every second which is digitally. Its this question of online radicalization. Its so difficult and we havent really been thinking creatively about how we get at that. I dont really have a good answer for that. Hopefully what emerges from this report will take a step in the right direction. And on trade, traditionally thought to be good for consumers, bad for jobs. This is actually the first time we have found a majority think trade is going to be good for trading jobs. For creating jobs. So on the republican right we , think this is more of a measure of hope that trade agreements and trade now under a new administration will end up being more advantageous for americans than President Trump may jobs and creating jobs and bringing back jobs a really big centerpiece of his platform. For republicans i think its hope that he will be able to do that. For democrats, we are reading this as a rejection of the anti trade messages that came from both parties and lasted during the primary president ial campaign. I would to say, on trade, i think both parties missed the trade party where there were the trade movie, which is that there was increased anxiety about displacement. They thought it was due to trade, but its much more due to technology than it is to trade. Again, it depends where you live and who you represent, if youre on the border state , you desk the southern border, but more than northern border with canada you understand that , crossborder manufacturing is a huge part of your economic engine especially cars which go , back and forth across the border so im told, 16 times before you make a car. I think people are more sophisticated. I started with this. I think people are much smarter than given credit for being. I think that has changed. I think your question about the sources of news is a really good question. I dont know whether that was probed by the Chicago Council or not. Here it is. So only 12 get their news , from social media or blogs. Most people still get their news from network tv, 34 and cable tv 28 . A newspaper, 7 radio. The only really big difference among the groups are that trump republicans are more likely to get their news from cable tv while other republicans who do not have a very favorable view of trump are more likely to get it from network tv. But it still tv mostly. And finally, a question we dealt with before as you see Public Opinion moving away from the administration on some issues, what problems does that pose for congress in terms of representing people rather than the party in power in the white house. I worry a little bit. First of all, i think this report is incredibly valuable. We are at risk of missing the forest for the trees. Right . Because, to some extent the , data, it poses the big question, which is why did trump win . Why did he beat 16 other candidates. Why did he beat a much better democratic opponent. I think the answer is that his message is more powerful and some of these individual parts. Some say it wasnt about nafta or moving away from alliances, it was about sort of a rejection of the elites. And embracing the forgotten man. I think thats true on some level. And partisan loyalty. Even on immigration, its fascinating. There were reports that he struck the steel with chuck this deal with Chuck Schumer and nancy pelosi which you think would put the base against him, but the message i heard was he was forced to do that because of mcconnell. So a set of worrying about it will war on the republican party, if we do not deliver on them of this tough thats going , to get worse. You can have the final word. I do think, one, i think youre right, the data doesnt explain and cant explain electoral outcomes which are binary choices and therefore all , kinds of things fall into it. What this demonstrates is that if you want to have a form of policy that fits more within the general stream of how bipartisan administrations for the past 70 years have conducted form Foreign Policy the public will , enable you to do that. The fundamental question which this report doesnt answer is how do you talk in a way thats convincing enough to mobilizing support of trade and let alliances and sensible form Foreign Policy. Thats the translation of ideas into politics and into action. What this suggests is america is not retreating, they dont want to come home, this is not 1972, its a very different kind of america. So you are unable to have a or and policy that is much more to have a Foreign Policy that is much more within the mainstream. It doesnt guarantee we will have one, it says there is an opportunity to build on that. Thank you and thank all of you. If you havent picked up a copy of the pole and the report, i would recommend that you do so. Its got all kinds of fascinating things that we didnt have time to touch on, but i commend you. There is also a story about in the Washington Post this morning. Which i recommend to everyone. Thank you all very much and thank you to the panelists. [applause] announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, discussing President Trumps upcoming visit to puerto rico today. Then, we are in charleston, west virginia, for the next stop on the cspan capital store bus. Bus. Pital toward 7 00re to watch live at a. M. This morning. Join me discussion. Of work do you do . What kind of entertaining, you are so no, i was called by the uso but i am just an entertainer, i dont want to go much past that. Is this share . Is this cher . Yes. Atand you spent the day walter reed . Yes. The guys who took me around our in the services. Fabulous men. Mike and john. These boys had unbelievable courage and they still said for the most part they were glad that they did it. They felt it was their duty. Orouncer for the past years, the Video Library is your resource for politics, congress, and recent affairs. So whether it happened 30 minutes ago or 30 years ago, find it in cspans Video Library. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. Announcer now a discussion on the rise of isis and how u. S. Foreign policy has impacted that organization. This hourlong event was hosted by the International Institute for strategic studies