Transcripts For CSPAN2 Colin Dueck Age Of Iron 20240713

But before i do i want to extend on your behalf and mine a warm welcome to colin himself and to our 2 distinguishedcommentators. As you probably know, colin is a professor at the start school in policy and government at George Mason University and is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise institute our neighbor next door literally. Colin has made his mark thinking deeply about american politics and this book is trademark dueck. It examines the concept of conservative nationalism, a phenomenon brought to public attention conspicuously through the rise of President Trump. In terms of both the history of ideas and how these ideas have found a manifestation in modern American History especially in the debates about americas role in the world so the book is both encompassing and granular simultaneously. And despite the gravity of the subject i can assure you its a very delightful read. I read the book over the last weekend and i commend it to your attention. So welcome colin, its a pleasure to have you with us. Im also very grateful that danny pletka and Richard Fontaine have consented to join us. We could not have asked for a better commentators given both their actual interest in conservatism and their own practical contributions to both the making and implementing of foreign and domestic policy in the United States. Danny has had a long career on capitol hill where she worked at the Senate Foreign relations committee. She has alsowritten extensively on us Foreign Policy especially on the middle east. Appears widely on television and until recently was the Senior Vice President for foreign and domestic Foreign Policy studies at where she continues to remain a senior fellow in foreign defense policy. Richard fontaine has had a long career. He is now the chief executive officer of the center for new American Security which i say with some jealousy is doing incredibly Creative Work on issues relating to us National Security. Richard worked for many years as senator john mccains Foreign Policy advisor and prior to that work in the state department, National Security council and also the Senate Foreign relations committee. So very warm welcome to both of you, danny and richard. Its wonderful to have you both here again. Without further ado, let me invite colin to present the key t themes of this book before i yield the floor to danny and richard for their comments. We will have a brief conversation thereafter and then i will open the conversation to the floor. And i look forward to your interaction at that time. I can colinand welcome. Ashley, thank you so much for this invitation. It so happens this Panel Includes three people all of whose experience and expertise and views i really respect so its a real pleasure to be here with danny and richard as well read danny, without danny s book probably wouldnt have happened. She may regret that but that is the truth at the American Enterprise institute so im glad to be here. Let me say a few words about the central thesis of the book. What motivated me from another among other things was the common argument over the last five years that the trumpet ministration represents something completely unprecedented in American History. And that this striking rise of populist nationalism on the right, on both sides of the atlantic is cause for comparisons really back to the 1930s. Without downplaying some of the genuine causes for concern, i think thats overstated area and i think it misunderstands the nature ofamerican populism , american nationalism and yet ministrations Foreign Policy so the book is in a polemic one way or other, its not a proor antitrump polemic but its an attempt to situate this moment in some Historical Context is often missing amongst the theories of the day. And what i own to you is that there is a kind of american Foreign Policy nationalism owing back to the founding which is not undemocratic at all, its quite the opposite. In the american case at least , there is a second nationalism which involves an american creed with powerful Classical Liberal elements, rule of law, rule of government, popular sovereignty and thats been bound up with an american sense of nationalism since the beginning so small c conservatives from the beginning have sought to conserve literally that tradition at the same time when it comes to Foreign Policy of founders had a couple of key principles that were really a consistent paradigm for generations. One if you have a dollar bill in your pocket you can see the idea that the United States will stand for something, will the popular selfgovernment spreads, that is a distinctly american hope back to the founding and thats the element of Foreign Policy nationalism and it doesnt mean you can do it by force but at least as an example but the second element and this is in washingtons farewell address is the ideathat you maintain a free hand , that there is that jefferson said later that there will be no entangling alliances, that was a key element in american Foreign Policy nationalism from the beginning and the founders saw no contradiction between those things. That was a dominant what we would call bipartisan tradition well into the 20th century and so what really shifted was Woodrow Wilsons innovation through world war i. Woodrow wilson believed not only did we need to tie a paradigm. So that is an alternative to the founders. And the critics gave them pause but from the beginning they have never quite agreed on how to tackle that liberal internationalist with those internal divisions and debates. I say there are three main groups of conservatives over the past century. One the nationalists are skeptical of the overkill where and it comes to multilateral trends but they basically believe you should have alliances overseas a robust presence at an active role overseas like Senator Henry Cabot Lodge facing up against wilson and the treaty of riverside debate he wanted the league of nations but just thought he was overly optimistic and unrealistic but then the second group strict noninterventionist some conservatives that say with those alliances altogether they contract peacefully with other countries but have a military role outside of the western hemisphere. Then then you have populists from west of the mississippi thats a street that runs through theres one in the middle that is a hard line unilateralism but doesnt give much attention in the elite discourse and is under representatives but a lot of conservatives over time have had a fairly strong willingness to spend on the military and concrete he adversaries to the soviet union and al qaeda but enthusiastic of broader projects because you cannot convince them there is an enemy that requires a response they tend to shy from a more active role. What you see is they would pit back and forth between activism and disengagement. So in that moment of the treaty to pay all three factions agree wilson was wrong but they did not agree why. In the twenties and thirties they agreed they should be detached from military affairs in europe. Pearl harbor settled that debate and then the rise of the soviet union left many hardline conservatives to support a more robust military role. The reason the most support of this a staunchly anti communism. And in the nineties it was wide open with paul and conservative internationalist george w. Bush settled that devoid for one that debate for some time but during the obama years then you are back to that. Where conservatives are asking what now . The big surprise of 2016 in the republican primary was that the republican nomination and going back to the forties and led the frontal result on the conservative nationalist tradition and that was astonishing and then to be marginalized and to be in charge and then to be deeply concerned. But what trump is doing in a way im not suggesting personally he has read these older documents but my suggestion is instinctively in american a nationalist you draws from older traditions and when trump ran for president there is a particular nationalism of his own where he said the same sort of thing over 30 years in his own unusual way. He said over and over uses the us allies as free riders rather than assets. Thats not my view it is his view he has been quite consistent about that. He said they were taking advantage of the United States economically and militarily and somehow he aim to fix this through his own negotiating skills that wasnt planned it wasnt the policy alternative but with some popular residents as we saw the 2016 primary particular tying in the frustration over military invention of iraq and afghanistan and frustrations economic globalization how does that benefit the well off china middleclass and frustrations over National Sovereignty to organizations he put together a sense of frustration and turned into a living platform. Its an older version of american nationalism that i think we have seen resurgent as part of a Historical Context once he transitioned unexpectedly to government because his election came as a surprise to people in this roo room, then what now . And now there is uncertainty from the beginning with severe personal challenges and in reality the trump foreignpolicy is a mixture of hardline lateral is a man foreignpolicy activism and engagement it is a hybrid because of the personnel around him and his own adaptations over time , flexible to a fault but there does seem to be a pattern of how he handles foreignpolicy and thats an argument that i make like a trump doctrine if you will indulge me i picture it as a two by two grid. He launches Pressure Campaigns against allies as well as adversaries launches Pressure Campaigns on Economic Issues as well as security. Another words again security and adversaries in north korea, iran, isis is pretty straightforward another might have done the same thing in a different way. But that is part of what you are seeing a maximum Pressure Campaign like iran and north korea for example then you see Pressure Campaigns against allies to increase defense spending. Not entirely new but he is in a way we have not seen before. You see Pressure Campaigns on the economic front against china as a us competitor that is a trump innovation not nearly as higher priority for previous president s to push china on the commercial side and finally against us allies on trade is new thats very trump. No other candidate would have done that. Japan or south kore korea, eu, looking for renegotiated arrangements. So what he does it goes up and down the ladder of escalation it can be said in an unexpected he will raise the temperature them over it. And then he will be willing to settle and talk with almost anybody. This tends to unnerve people it unnerves allies and adversaries and probably some of his own staff. But what i do find striking over time if you try to turn on the ball on turned on the volume come is not obvious he himself knows the endpoint i dont think he knows his own Reservation Point he keeps his options open. That is different from saying he is hellbent on disrupting National Order i dont think he is convinced of that one way or the other in fact im doubt he could. He is interested to renegotiate with current agreements consistent with his promises and with those overseas commercial diplomatic and military reserving the right to walk away renegotiate or maintain. There are us troops in poland than under obama so the outcome is not predetermined. A significant amount of presence is still there and may need to be increased in some cases. And that seems to be the Foreign Policy. Know im happy to talk in discussion on each of those friends but thats what it looks like to me just a few final thoughts. I also talk about Public Opinion to the Trump Administration and i found to my surprise the distribution of opinion really hasnt changed that much over the last five or ten years. Trump took advantage of one end of the spectrum and he managed to turn that into a winning argument but the distribution doesnt change that much the average voter has mixed feelings about foreignpolicy activism but theres no less support than there was five or ten or 15 years ago so he hasnt changed voters minds is much as you think he has made a big difference to capture certain segments of opinion. Most republicans for example had a negative of opinion of putin ten years ago they still do today. Mixed feeling of globalization ten years ago mixed feelings today most support nato ten years ago and today. That is the reality politically. Having said that, i do think there is a longterm shift the Republican Party has become more populist and culturally conservative white workingclass voters over time is the base of the party and that will have an effect on your foreignpolicy including your trade policy. No getting around it and he is as much a symptom as a cause he has accelerated that but also representing longterm shifts. So i would not assume just because he exits the scene the shifts disappear you cannot assume he is a one off and as soon as he is gone everything will snap back to 2014. Im a little skeptical about that. So my conclusion would be that in the future conservative leaders will have the opportunity to make foreignpolicy cases that can play a leading role the public is open to it there still a fair amount of support for conservatives but some of these longterm shifts are real there will have to be Coalition Building and more than one type of conservative and they will have to figure out how to be in the same party not to mention with others. So one way or another my conclusion would be conservative american nationalism is here to stay. Thank you. [applause] can you say a few words . Thank you so much for being here. Im glad i didnt even have to put on a coat to come from my office and think each year words of thanks. He says very kindly he would not have done this i know he would have because he was already working on it he was the first cohort of our program at aei and he was one of the first scholars people come from academia to a think tank to work on policy related issues and shy away from the Academic Work they were doing and we wanted you because we knew you would be productive and indeed you are this is a fine work and everybody is super happy about it. Of course standing next to richard is nice for me i feel like im a fulcrum because he was my legislative assistant when he was a wee thing. [laughter] you havent changed a bit. [laughter] this is a very sober and find treatment of the questions that confront us all. And what i like best about it is delving into the origins the Foreign Policy and National Security but in a way that is absent the hysteria that characterizes every issue with these issues today in washington to have a sober and serious conversation that doesnt reference twitter in any way. All the way bookmarked one part because i thought i knew he were talking about that you harken back to in the title and then your final chapter so call and rights he was hardly optimistic about this new era that schedules will be honored and fame will vanish so i said i know who you are talking about. [laughter] and it is true. But the reality is that if you set aside all the drama that goes around with the conversation whether we will abandon nato under article five or walking away from the global commitments, the reality is that this is what i see is a new typical aversion and we can all debate whether in fact at every turn we had a project some years ago in reaction a nervous making rise of libertarian ideas and rand paul is at the forefront of what i would call isolationism and on the left as well. And that was on display a little bit with National Security. But we started this project in looking at pulling over the years about Public Interest of global engagement. And what you see is very cyclical engagement interest. And if you go back to the president ial campaign you can go back even further to clinton every single one of these campaigns republican and democrat has been about turning inward its the economy stupid. And we can go on and on with nationbuilding it was a barack obama slogan but easily it could have been donald trump and in each instance they run on the slogans every says its terrible we are turning inward and then i focus on my area of the world and then we are entangled in a conflict in the middle east and donald trump has been no different than that. And the other point to make that is rightly described the American Public is fairly confident. The only thing that really changes is interested engagement on particular issues. For example people think its great to be in afghanistan with this longrunning and hugely not successful war. But during the Obama Administration just as we were drawing down in iraq it was a relatively rare speech talking about the importance. The American People are game to be led. I want to say that is true in most democracies. And when they make the persuasive case whether it is for an engagement military engagement or disengagement or moving away or nationbuilding here at home, whatever cliche they choose they react to that as well. I would not call that fickleness but a general normal lack of interest day today of National Security. And we pay a lot of attention to this. Most people dont. And that is just the reality and thats not a bad thing. We pinpoint something i would call it an open question for the future with this populist trend. This is really the reason to my mind more than and the tectonic shift within society rather than the sudden appeal of the Donald Trumps of the world. So we have Political Parties that are remaining relatively static over the years especially in the United States where we dont simply get to up and decide so therefore i will create a new political party. So we have these relatively static Political Parties and one that has changed rightly as so many do around the world for those to represent their interest and this is where we see the upstarts coming from not just in the United States with someone like donald trump at all over europe and asia and elsewhere. That should not be a surprise. But the underpinnings of that and the loss of faith and the establishment and the National Security phenomenon and i commend to you the work that Charles Murray wrote a book couple years ago coming apart and in it he details the fact 15 years ago there was enormous relationships in the United States that people are not isolated in their bubble and the cross pollination and then they would marry the non university educated and then to become much more frightened and with this popular phenomenon to be Donald Trumps constituents whitecollar less educated men who feel like society has left them behind. What those people think is usually important and could be a transformative driver. Could be but might not and its very hard for us to know one way or the other so this is something for all of us to think about. I was told to off my phone and of course i didnt. And all of these come together to raise questions that just are not about article five. They are not about the commitments of the moment and if poland pays 2 percent these are broader ideas that are flexible but shift over time and may have an impact over time if they are not vigilant. Thank you. Thank you for bringing us together. Congratulations on the book so i thought i would give a few thoughts on some of the things that thought that one that struck me in the book and the difference of those conclusions but i think first what they have laid out is right with the cyclical nature of us Foreign Policy with the entrenchment and you can see this as we get into the korean war and how that retrench is with nixon and ford to pull back vietnam and other places so you can see that waxing and waning of that exertion around the world with retrenchment and the biggest driver is at the end of really long wars americans be come realist. The idealism is thrown out the window and people say we have to constrain the definition of our National Interest and that goes on for a while and then starts to expand again so the Trump Administration is only part of that. So call and framed that intellectual reaction among the conservatives thinking about foreignpolicy in reaction to wilson and with the assumption of overseas territories and that significantly changes the way everyone including conservatives thought about america is responsibility. But the more sale yet turning point is 1945. And here is what i think the Trump Administration is part of this cyclical thing much more than donald trump if that is more of an outliner one outlier then they just dont agree many times. So if you look post 1945 there are broad assumptions based and us policy or principles and one is to maintain the peace to have strong alliances and for those that never came home because we have seen the alternative so we will not do that again. And then to maintain prosperity of the International Economic system and the the third was to be safeguarded at home when possible we would have a bias in favor of democratic systems but that debate within the parties and ideological streams of how you do this. So what are the tradeoffs . What trade deals and those in the post 1945 with that assumption and in part that is the reaction the first half where we saw the first world wars and it is the most devastating. So donald trump comes in and his instincts are the reverse on those three things. Which is not a model of consistency see you can find all of these exceptions but rather than and then to return to the first half of the 20th century that this is bad deal for the United States because allies had been getting rich under us protection and not paying their fair share with the International Economic agreements and free trade and with the belief that trade deficits can harm the little guy. Then he doesnt seem terribly interested in democracy of human rights with venezuela exceptions but its just not top priority. Some of these are trends and obama you can see a similar trend in this direction. Obama wanted to dial back American Military commitments overseas and all over the place. But i do think that trump in that sense is a very smart and different american Foreign Policy had been assumed whether republican or democrat or conservative or liberal but its complicated because he administration its hard to think of people who have that dire view of our allies what it should look like it to be any different. So witness out to be something more with a broad cyclical up and down. Part of this is new because there is the nationalist part we havent really seen a populist part we had not let on elected Bernie Sanders or pat buchanan so that populism or the starting point that the good common sense of the American People when appropriately applied can resolve entrenched problems the country faces and that there is a corrupt elite distorting things for its own purposes and things like tha that, we havent seen that as articulated and by no means is it only on the republican side look at the front runner on the democratic side there are very strong echoes of big institutions are run by elites and they are out to get you and only by a applying the common sense of the real American People can we overcome the challenges we face as a country. That just gets back into what is more philosophical but how do we identify as americas interest to protect and pursue . Republicans as recently as mitt romney or john mccain probably would have been comfortable generally with the idea that america is the place where people from around the world can come and buy into the notion of fundamental rights and freedom. The hardline nationalist view is not an idea but a particular set of a particular geography which is the United States and that has to be protected so that raises issues that can harm the physical security and Economic Security of the American People and the traditional homeland much higher than thinking about the rights of others to live in peace or democracy or even americans living overseas. You saw this with President Trump quite obviously was much more concerned about north Korea Missiles that could hit the United States the north a mirror on north Korea Missiles that could hit the peninsula but thats a big difference the way it is publicly articulated american president s have thought about these things including on the right. To final things. One. On the pulling of popular opinion it is the part that distinguishes between what resonates and what people vote on. Its an interesting to see if all the people who voted for donald trump how many did so on the basis they were hurt by japan by American Forces deployed and on the democratic side now or at a trump rally that is the commitment to end the forever wars that resonates just getting tough with the allies it resonates but its not at any way definitive that a president couldnt take a very different position on this including ending the socalled forever wars theres no marches in the street. Its not vietnam or even 2003. But there are others that people will vote on that a president cannot walk away from mike immigration and trade. You can get people to express an opinion they will have much more room for maneuvers they are bound to their base or to resonate and then finally the book concludes those interesting reflections of what should be the future of conservative foreignpolicy and the republicans that are not in the administration to talk about and sometimes it those in 1920 to say we have a plan they will not be there forever they will call any day now. So who the hell knows whats coming next . And then to see the election Going Forward. But this is a contribution to that debate so thank you colin for writing and ashley for the talk. Thank you because i love books with a subtle d that make things clear. And in ways when you read them you think i knew that all along i just didnt have the conceptual operation to capture that. This is really one of those books. After you read it, you end up agreeing with a lot and you end up thinking i knew that for this reason. I want to come back to some of the mechanics you unpack in the book because i know we will come back to trump in some way or form an open discussion. You make the argument that the substructure of the movement after bush consists of three groups. Isolationists, unilateralist were nationalist, and then internationalists. And that for much of america is the postwar engagement with the coalition between the nationalist and internationalist that has allowed us to maintain a foreignpolicy that was activist and expansive. As this coalition has fragmented of isolationists versus nationalist that is what is explained in some ways with donald trump that is the structure in which the analysis of the book is based in that does tell us something that goes beyond the headlines. I have two questions. The nationalist and internationalist coalition produces the world order we have seen post 1945. And yet today that is the inheritance we have to deal with the United States is no longer the republic. And the management of that order is every day breadandbutter business and in this environment what is the future of the isolationist and nationalist coalition . We dont have the luxury. And to be condemned to manage the world if we like it or not or wanted or not because the interest our time on tied to the world we have created with that nationalist and internationalist coalition not the product of the isolationists. But with that coalition that is represented by trump that is any different from the expectations from the presence of the trump coalition. So what do you fear of the future of this coalition bringing trump into office . There is more than one possibility one is that it is not managed that is entirely possible maybe the political coalitions run up against foreignpolicy legacies and inherited legacies that are just extremely disruptive. I think a lot of people feel that is what we are seeing right now. That is one possibility. However i do like the point that came up from danny and richard which is the sheer role of president ial leadership and persuasion i do think i say how past republican president s have cobbled together coalitions i have to deal with the powerful midwestern nationalist wing and he handled it very effectively not by actually confronting them but cooperating to recognize those concerns if you can imagine a future with a republican president who skillfully bridges these gaps and understands the average voter is not voting on the exact amount of money south korea and japan pays the United States. However you are seeing a real shift to demand respect on immigration may be trade. As it turns out there are a lot that the multilateral are hurt over time. Politically thats the fact that has to be recognize. Whether or not you economist like it or not. So you will see some new not exactly like bush or reagan or trump and that will depend on the specific leadership so its possible these things can be managed in the way that you describe. I think a lot of that depends on president ial leadership. What you are the effects of these coalitions . If we move into a phase of embedded distribution of International Trade relations and different groupings wouldnt those convictions change . How much of this is a response to the globalization that manifest in itself . The question i am getting at are these convictions primordial . Or in some sense a function of circumstances . I think it is number two they completely disappeared during the cold war and thats just how they felt because that reality is that it was an understood threat so even smatter. Circumstances matter. I think trump recognize politically here that uncanny sensitivity to the fact the just the potential appeal of protectionist policy however are the enough his supporters feel coming up to november that he has renegotiated these trade deals and then politically to say if he chooses is not completely walk away from afghanistan are not disband nato in the second term he has the ability to do that. There will be these less demonstrations and that is the cult of personality because to have the support of their party. So i actually think if you are aware of the internationalist penalty that that is possible. Even under donald trump. Events make a big difference so if there is a shocking military event or a crisis or a war breaks out you can see a second trump term radically different than the first and thats not unusual. You could have a foreignpolicy that changes quite a bit whether the president likes it or not. And part of the problem that we have and that is becoming more and more common as we look inwards is we deny agency to everybody else. The truth is there are two huge factors we havent talked about to have a very meaningful influence in the fluctuations and then to talk about the depression but the financial crisis of 2008 to be incredibly impactful. And to have a huge effect on what i describe as the tectonic shift of american politics. And that is part one the second part of course is part of the cyclical nature is to disengage and with that vernacular that teethree and prior extent to that and then shit happens happens and then it sucks us back in because often times they are events that call and describes like 9 11 still one of my favorite conversations i was marveling how much i could not stand the second term of the bush administration. And she said because the second term is the president he would have been had 9 11 did not happen and i did not like him and that is exactly right. And that is the reality without this event that drew us back in and if we stop for a second and dont gaze at our bellybuttons in a slightly enthusiastic way we have the last couple of years there are other roles in which there are some very serious threats not just to the new world order that we have sustained and has made us all pretty rich even the people feel that they are not. But also there are other factors out there we dont talk about as much that has huge potential for disruption we dont talk about nonproliferation anymore at all or weapons of mass destruction and any one of those could call that he one cause the event that colon talks about. If you look historically the ideological preference people will subsume their preferences if they are afraid enough of the external threat. That is the key driver. In 1945 you still have robert taft who not only were at least cause i isolationist if not mor more, part of the ideological in polls they didnt want to have the National Security basis a broad Standing Army and a huge federal bureaucracy that collected taxes from everybody. But as the cold war picked up strength those concerns were relegated to a secondtier so you may prefer a small government and you prefer not to have government in your face but it something bigger to worry about. And after 9 11 and in part because we saw this connected we had a democracy where the country would have bearing on how radicalized people were in military intervention and thus stabilize countries in different areas. So now the small Government Conservative in the 19 nineties were really trying to chip away at the National Security state that was no longer necessary. So whether there is a war, it could be china as the major perceived existential challenge with the core things that we enjoy in the United States but the question is the future president may have all the preferences that go along with the hardline unilateralist because they are small Government Conservative and doesnt think we should be in the war but if the fear is great enough it will be reduced to a great more expansive view of Foreign Policy. I will open the discussion but i have one question so how do the three groups identify of that manifestation . And citizenship with that constitution. And that citizenship and to certain identities. And then to answer that is that an idea or a place and then the hardline nationalist have a view of a particular people of a religious and ethnic background with the civic definition and as a historical fact. So thats when i think of it. And to be compatible if you think that is a problem not to have that a policy approach at large. The only thing i would add to that is people have looked at lots of the drivers of populism right now and the nationalism that is linked with the economic drivers and the fed up and ascend the nonrepresentation that is spoken to the needs but there is also cultural aspects with the percentage of foreignborn americans is higher than in over 100 years it crested around world war i and then to close the spigot of those to come in and now we see that again. But that diversity is embraced and then to be seen as a great virtue of the country and a renewing phenomenon especially if you tack on the economic difficulties. And then to say we have been doing a lot of stuff is time to put america first. So to finding on how you define that noun of america first, that could be a driver for some of this. You are right its hard to know but there also demographically elevated so one of my favorite interviews from right around the time of the controversy that we will do more to support us and we are all arguing on a sunday show and he said why it was and said weick one because they cant and that is an important factor so as you disinvest as we have been doing for quite some time. And then to have a population and the job of the young people is to sustain and pay for and work and they dont want to join the military and their parents dont want them sent off. With those of china and not enough to sustain them but it is not a nation of immigrants and that is the energy of growth and if we stop we will have the same problem. And i want to open the discussion and identify yourself. That is a very stimulating discussion. So trade sovereignty is not only not going to go away anytime soon but only in the us but throughout the world though. And with the National Security National Interest that we need to think about the trade sovereignty of all quarters begins to affect the overwhelming environment and with these rivals and anything you like. To me this was one of the striking things of the last five years and also with the recommendations. And that issue needed to be addressed in those us trade disputes strategically or economically so to have some kernel of truth to be a well coordinated effort to do that but picking fights with allies and then resolving those foyt on those fights and with the eu they are very worried so i agree there is a trend there is a trend toward protectionism with the shift that we are seeing. And that seems to be one of the biggest things that we really have a problem to put their foot down. But that is a sore spot then you have the local constituents complaining. So ideally to have a place to coordinate with allies. I think it is as historic a shift as you are describing because it has been a vast goal and also with members of congress and the public and we were far more willing and with god knows how many msn debates and how it shifted depending on the constituency was they are not leaders so now and that confuse the donald trump got elected there isnt a narrowing of that golf and what we never talk about is age. Im sorry i am not as bright as i once was for those that were created in the wake of world war ii are somehow spry and all of these are hugely sporadic to make the challenges of the intellectual property competition they have not evolved and thats a problem nobody talks about. And the skepticism of trade and number two because the trade agreements are. Colin are broad access to services be across the border. You dont get to vote on automation. But i think it is a severe challenge because there is sort of two remedies to this. Ignore everybody who is hurt or harmed by whatever economic phenomena is the issue here. And then there is the other sort of conceptually attractive on which we will retrain the people who are in manufacturing and them get higher paying service jobs especially to those as far as i can tell, if not yet tradable goods nor can they be automated in a way by Artificial Intelligence or anything like that. So when you have other people making these decisions who are 99 percent secure that the effects of these economic phenomena will ultimately be in the selfinterest of economics. It is hard to say, what really is the solution. Are we really going to have a system that effectively takes the manner the woman has been working in manufacturing in North Carolina for 30 years and now is going to either find same sense of purpose in everything by working at the strip mall even if they get paid 50 cents more an hour or, ideally became a programmer in seattle. It is very hard to see how that will actually work. Host you have a commission on that logix of the market. In the logix of the state. It moves now to a production that crosses National Boundaries and has consequences to that shift. In those transformations are state choices in many ways. Yeah we have to manage those consequences without an easy solution. Beforrichard you can recognize the challenge, or you can have empathy with those who are affected and then come out making matters even worse if you adopt them if theyre on the wrong economic policy. Host politically, trump shall have a narrow coalition, with a protectionist and out done with the democratics. Pennsylvania and michigan. Some politicians, copy success. In racy debate like last night, the democratic debate, for one, bloomberg did not have a great night. And you see the democratic party, is not going to take the lead on it that way. Negative conversion. Host you mentioned, the conservative nationalism is here to stay. Do you see the same trend in shift. Colin do you see the same trend or shift in europe that is the first part of my question. Are your views, on definitions of nationalism compatible or not compatible. The only heavy views put forward in this book virtue of nationalism. Richard we slightly different somethings. Theres a defense of National Sovereignty. He suggested that there is a benign element to this historically. Theres a tradition this is that we have it signed anything better than the nationstate. Just constitutional selfgovernment. And by the way, they dont come together for the most part abstract, the social contract, the come together for suspicion. Out of extreme challenges. So i actually think theres a good point. I think, i dont know if you have a global fear of nationalism. It is a set, to begin with, the american version for the most part, it is understood and it is bound up with Classical Liberal ideas in a lot of ways. Thats certainly not true worldwide. In the is with Foreign Policy as well. So for example, the americans have the right to give a speech. And could criticize for internal information. I dont know where you find a framework if you are a strict nationalist across the board, i dont know why that it is americas business about the internal affairs. If i read norms book, dosing basis for u. S. To be able to do that. But i think he is in a way brilliant. So the short answer is yes, its here to stay. I would see immigration is issue number one. Theres a book i would recommend, is called white shift. It is a very calm and thoughtful book. He goes through cases and suggestions. Thurman biggest cause of the rise of populism is the issue of mass migration and the fact that this is causing a feeling that traditional ethnic majorities are no longer the majorities. And thats encouraging the rise of new populist and since the movement might betray the movements in the might and and since the benefit might be migration from africa. In the coming century. So that is true, and i think it is, that is going to force your government to do something about it. Given that we already have a large Large Population in those countries. Those parties are not going to land or be the underlying factors are there. Informed policy, as you know, tend to be much more skeptical. Of the 80 you. There are a lot of welfare issues which is interesting. Right wing on economic conditions. Negotiations, that is a top issue i would say. Some of them are very pro and some of the marked. If you are polish you are not pro clinton. Host there might be a different way to look at this. That is the american version. What is the future of the nationstate. And what is the nationstate. And of course we might make adjustments. Host is a political offer. Its a small question. [laughter]. Colin i think there is such a thing and i defend the word nationalism. Some people dont like the word nationalism. I think there is an american nation and specific things an american nationstate. They might have a distinct quality but nonetheless they do. An american tends to be bottom left. It is democratic. We like to keep it that way but there is historically a nationstate. And i took about in the book in the u. S. Civil war. You probably heard the line as these United States. Multiple. Under lincolns leadership, they signal the United States. They insisted on it. In the american nationstate. With the ability to be able to defend its territory if necessary. Since 19 evidence also a place. There is a forceful element to it. There has been a tendency that its disappearing because of economic distant parents. I would say the nationstate has come back with a vengeance in many parts of the world and of course some do not have effective control over their territory. But i would not cant the nationstate out printed fact if youre american, i dont think it should. I think you should see the United States as a distinct nation that has responsibility to its citizens. I think that is part of what we are saying. Hopefully restored sense that is something called the United States and its a nation. And we have an obligation to each other. Host thank you. Guest [inaudible]. At one point, you asked the question of how or describe how Global Trends are running up against the existence ofs dates of the potential of or however you described it. We have most holy lateral institutions. All of this discussion if we look at europe and migration, so that europe as an entity has not tried to find or response to migration, and rational reason listing response. They simply do not have the institutional framework to be able to do that even though they actually have a Multilateral Institution that puts most of us to shame is a Multi Lateral institutions of the fact that even europe is not being able to do that, i think sort of gets back to your original observation is that we do have this inadequacy of estate the nationstate, to address the global problems that we have. But then it does ultimately come back to dannys observation which however it may be, we really do need to start to address the question in a Multi Lateral level. In this were the going to be very difficult to convince genuine nationalist selfdescribed of the virtue of multilateral and Multi National initiatives and indeed, some sovereignty. Guest it was the exact solution to the problem. Because it defined the nation, not in terms of ethnicity but in terms of a constitutional commitment. So in that sense, it became irrelevant in favor of a new amended personality. And if that becomes the definition of the nation, and the United States can survive and prosper nationstate. Because there is no particular definition of nation in this case. Everyone who go becomes american becomes part of this american nation. It is when you start i think settling for conceptions. Then you begin to see the competition within the own countries. So there is a mighty lateral dimension to it but i think maybe the issue has to be drawn within. Within the countries themselves that will impact of the nation to itself. It is a catch22. It really is. You talking about two Different Things in a lot of ways. One of his your problem with migration, or immigrants. Because when immigrants come to European Countries, European Countries do not like to say, with the exception perhaps a little bit of england, and small part of france, they would like to say, heres what our country stands for. Because it sounds too much like i am irish and you cannot have that. So as a result you have these people come and do not get it sense of civic nationalism. They denied that sense of ethnic nationalist and so they are forever outside. That causes here of problems we have not had that. Increasingly i will say there is an element that conservatives. Many think of us as white anglo saxon protestant and thats what makes america and therefore you immigrants, no matter whether your believe in the American Dream or not for the constitution nearly never going to be part of it and thats by the left and during the playing of the National Anthem work that they are not fully american if they were insultingly as americans without some donated detachment. So we have these factors that are all making the problem bigger and because of them we cannot actually come together and decide how to prioritize to any of them. We cant actually decide if the people longer if they belong and how to manage it. It is a real trap. Guest honey change the shift in demographics especially generation see coming into the mix. We are growing up in a completely disconnected world. The thought process of nationalism Going Forward that even now theres more millennials shaping the Public Opinion. Colin so i will comment on a couple of things. I will be teaching this in overtime you see the shift. Ive been teaching this for 30 years. So hundreds of students, and it seems to be that the millennials ares skeptical of military intervention. Then the other generations because what they have grown up with, none of it is been been very positive experience. This is an even the 911 generation anymore. I now have undergrads who know have no memory of 911. Invoicing will this is talking. But that is not their experience. The world is dragging on the greater middle east. And they have no memory at all of the cold war. In my generation, there was a big formative moment. So that matters. That is totally across party lines. Some republicans actually sure that you. So i think thats not to say this contained. People age developed different views as well. But i think the more skeptical of military. Why do we need to intervene after all, it work out anyway. So theres a piece of that solution. In some elements of cultural and logical interdependence which would cause a positive outcome which i find interesting. Im almost skeptical of that. Maybe if i am just a natural path. I have noticed that changed over time. I guess that would be my short take on how millennial start taking you african born falsely. Richard International Affairs biggest actor. My sense is that notion is widely shared including the month millennials today back when i was in college that in the late 90s was all about Multi National corporations and superpowered individuals. Multilateral organizations in the eclipse of the nations estate. As a sort of Building Block of the International Affairs. You know, networks of non governmental organizations and activists and things of that. Certainly, if you look at isis, the nationstate leaving another nationstate inputted into the isis. Thats kind of obvious. People did the Global Financial crisis. Some had to turn on the monetary spigot. And governments had to use fiscal policy in order to help pull out of the financial pieces. It was really very little that you can do without in fact, i think that the governments role in all of our economy when specifically up rather than down. Right at this moment when the nationstate was totally being eclipsed and always economic more than anything else. So there is this kind of written reality that all of the desire for multi lecture all framework, as with the reality of big corporations, they can move opinion and technology to connect people around the world. It really still is the nations state that is the primary actor in International Affairs and to the degree that it is not in terms of men Multi Lateral framework. They have made a conscious decision to see some particular element of their sovereignty or constrain their decisionmaking and semites. In some may perceive that outcome at a different level. Host the issue of the rise of china, i think it could unite a lot of different factions, writeins and we get heated debates over interventions particularly syria, retrospective places. What when it comes to china, even actually some of their non interventionalists voices are down with the notion that youve got to do something and i think that can be something. Host one of the things that struck me in the story he told the book, was that you have travel who is a product of an isolationist nationalist. Without a lot of competition. [laughter]. And makes social advice in a very different direction from what the and on that note i want to thank all of you for coming to the endowment this morning i want to extend my thanks to giving us the opportunity to host today. To danny for spending time with us. I look forward to seeing you back here at some point in the future. We do have collins book on sale outside of the room. If you have an interest, you can entice him to sign a copy for you. But we have a few copies out there. Thank you very much and see you soon byebye. [applause]. Weeknights this week, tv programs showcasing what is available every weekend on cspan2. Tonight, books on appalachia, first historian matthew, chronicles Robert Kennedys visit in the winter of 1967 and 1968. And how it fueled his interest to run for president and then kathy chambers looks back at her grandmother on another to grow up in poverty in kentuckys Appalachian Mountains region and their decisions to remain or leave. After that, jd vance calls his childhood town in ohio. Seventeenth book festival in washington dc. Watch this week and every come on cspan2. If you miss any of our life coverage is of the governments response to the coronavirus outbreak watch at any time at cspan. Org coronavirus from daily briefings by the president and the White House Task force. Two updates to governors of the hardest hit states. It is all there. Use the charts and maps to track them global spread and confirmed cases in the u. S. County by county. On our coronavirus webpages your fast and easy way to wash cspans unfiltered coverage of this pandemic. Television has changed since cspan began 41 years ago and her mission continues. To find an unfiltered view of government. Already this year we brought you primary election coverage, the president ial impeachment process, and now the federal response to the coronavirus printed you can watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. And be part of the National Conversation through cspan daily washington journal program. Or through our social media feed, cspan, created by private industry, americas Cable Television company in the Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Thank you everyone for being here. Its been difficult, we have parking