Conservative nationalist. I will say a couple of things about the book in a moment, but i want to extend on your behalf and mine a warm welcome tocolin himself and as you know he is a professor at the policy and government have George Mason University he made his mark thinking deeply about the politics, and this book is trademark direct. It examines the concept of the conservative nationalism, the phenomenon that has been brought to the public attention conspicuously to the rise of president trump. In terms of both the history of ideas and howf these ideas have found manifestations in modern American History, especially the debate about americas role in the world. So, the book is both an encompassing granular and despite the gravity of the subject i can assure you that its also a very delightful read. Lastd the book over the weekend and i commended your attention. Welcome. It is a pleasure to have you with us. I am also grateful that danny pletka and fontaine have joined us. We couldnt have asked for better commentators given both their intellectual interests and conservatism and their own practical contributions to the making and implementing of the domestic policy in the United States. Danny has had a long career on capitol hill where she worked. Shes also written extensively on the u. S. Foreign policy especially the middle east and appears widely on television and until recently was the Senior Vice President for the foreign and domestic policy studies where she continues to remain a senior fellow. Now the chief officer for the american security, which i say with some jealousy is doing incredibly Creative Work on these issues relating to the u. S. National security. Richard worked for many years as senator john mccains Foreign Policy adviser and prior to that worked at the state department, the National Security council and also the Senate Foreign relations committee. So a very warm welcome to both of you. Its wonderful to have you both here again. Without further ado, let me invite colin to present the theme of the book before i use the floor for comments. We will have a brief conversation after and then i will open the conversation to the floor. And i look forward to your interactions during that time. Thank you, colin. Welcome. Thanks very much for the invitation. It just so happens that the Panel Includes three people, all of whom. So it is a pleasure toew be her. In fact, dani, without this book it may not have happened. So, glad to be here. Let me say a few words about the central thesis of the book. What motivated me among other things was the common argument over the last five years that thee Trump Administration represents something completely unprecedented in American History and the rise of populist nationalism on the right on both sides of the atlantic is a cause for the comparisons. Without downplaying the cause for concern i think that is overstated. It is an isnt bulimic one way r another, but its an attempt to situate the moment for the broad Historical Context which i think is often missing amidst assorted theory of the day. In the american case at least there is a civic nationalism which involves an american creed with powerful classical elements, who was law, sovereignty. So in a sense conservatives in the beginning have sought to conservative traditions. If you have a dollar bill in your pocket you can see the idea of the ne new ordering the agesf the United States will stand for something and that it will help the popular selfgovernment as prince. That is the distinct american help going back to the founding and thats been the element of the Foreign Policy. It doesnt mean you can always do that by force, but at least as an example. You maintain a freehand that there is as jefferson put it later that was the key element from the beginning. Well into the 20th century and shifted as i argue with roe wilsons innovation. They believe they are not only needed to tie the Foreign Policy paradigm would we cultivate open with some, tie back to the possibilityal of domestic progressive reforms in every country including the United States. You need to be willing to intervene on the ground militarily in europe to indicate democracy overseas, but you also need to be able to make the multilateral commitments alrldwide as he intended in the league of nations. So that is a shift, that is an alternative to the founders and wilson understood it as such and so did his critics which is what gave him pause. The republicans and conservatives have never quite agreed on how much to tackle or counter or accommodate the tradition. Thereve been internal divisions over and over again and we will probably keep seeing it. There are three groups over the past century. One, conservative internationalists are skeptical of some of the overkill when it comes to multilateral commitments, but they basically believe that you should have alliances overseas or robust american prisons as an active role overseas. That for example is the position of Henry Cabot Lodge who faced up against wilson during the treaty of versailles debates. He wanted the alliance with britain and france. He just though thought that wils was overly optimistic and unrealistic. Then theres the second group on the other. They say the u. S. Should avoid these altogether. It can trade peacefully with others but it shouldn should ha military old out of sight of what saved the western hemisphere so that is the tradition that goes back to the period ass well. We have often populist west of the mississippi. That is the stream that runs through them. The third kind of right in the middle that is a hardline unilateralism which doesnt get as much attention into discourse i would say its been underrepresenteded but a lot of conservatives have had a strong willingness to spend on the military and willingness to counter concrete adversaries. But they are an enthusiastic about the internationalist projects and if you cannot convince them there is an enemy that requires the response, they tend to shy away from the more active role. And what you see is they pick it back and forth between activism and disengagement depending on the circumstances. So in that moment of the debate, all the factions agree he was wrong but they didnt agree why. In the 20s and 30s for the most partng they agreed that thy should be detached from military affairs in europe. Pearl harbor settled the debate for some time and bee then the e of the soviet union led many hardline conservatives to support the more robust military role overseas. But if you think that somebody like senator barry goldwater, he wasnt enthusiastic at all about the liberal internationalism as such. The reason most conservatives recorded thi this as they were anticommunist, staunchly anticommunist. So as welcome as it was edward the question of what now. You had ron paul and the internationalists and sort of everything in between. George w. Bush is a bit with the war on terror and i think most of them supported that from much of the administration but once he leaves office during the obama ayers you are back to the period that the conservatives are asking what now. The big surprise in my opinionn of 2016, 2015, 2016 in the republican primary was not a candidate could win the republican nomination, in fact the presidency campaigning against the internationalist tradition going back to the 40s. Ti donald trump really led a frontal assault on the conservative internationalist tradition going back decades, and he one which was astonishing. He sort of turned things upside down. Thene groups that have been marginalized folk that they were underrepresented and those that were in charge were deeply concerned. But i think what he was doing in a wacom and i way, and im notg that he personally read these older documents, but by the suggestion instinctively as a kind of american nationalist who draws from the older traditions to maintain a freehand for example. When he ran for president he had a particular nationalism of his own. If you go back you can see that the same sort of thing for 30 years in his own unusual way. He said over and over again he viewed them as free riders. Primarily as free riders rather than assets. That isnt my view, its his view. He aimed to somehow fix this through his own negotiating skills. It wasnt really planned and there was no sense of what was the policy alternative but it was with some popular residents as we saw in the 2016 primary, particularly when you tie in frustration in iraq and afghanistan not to mention libya, frustrations with the patterns of economic globalization that seemed to benefit the well off and frustrations over the national sovereignty, the supernatural organizations. He bundled together the sense of frustration and turned it into a winning platform, so it is an older version of american nationalism. There is a particular that i think we have seen resurgent and that is part of the Historical Context. Once he had to transition it came as a surprise to a lot of people in this room than the question is a what now, what is the policy and there it is thef uncertainty from the beginning. Severe personnel challenges and in reality, the trump for p an policy is more of a mixture of nonintervention, hardline unilateralism and u. S. Foreign policy activism and engagement. Its partly because of personnel around him. Thats partly because of his own adaptation over time. There is a pattern of how he handles the Foreign Policy, and thats one of the arguments i make as well. If you will indulge me to sound like a political scientist, i would pick drake as a two by two grid. He launches pressure campaigns against allies and adversaries and pressure campaigns on Economic Issues as well as security funds. So in other words, against the security adversaries and north korea are iran, isis, taliban another might have done the same thing in a different way but thats part of what youre saying, maximuyou aresaying, mae campaign in case of iran and north korea forwh example. Then you see pressure campaigns against the allies to increase defense spending not entirely new but he is the blonde in a way we have not seen before. You see the campaigns on the economic front against china, the u. S. Competitor. That is a trumpto innovation. It wasnt nearly as high priority for the previous president s to really push china on the commercial side and then finally, against the u. S. Allies on trade. I dont think any other candidate would have done that. Japan, south korea, the eu looking for the renegotiated suppose our campaigns. What he does as he goes up and down the ladder of escalation in ways that can be quite sudden and unexpected. He will would raise the temperature and lower it. He would be willing to settle or talk to almost anybody. This tends to unnerve people, allies, adversaries, probably even some of his own staff. But what i do find striking if you tryr to turn down the volume which tends to be very high, it isnt obvious that he himself knows the endpoint which is interesting. He keeps his options open. That is different from saying hes hellbent on the international order. I am not convinced that he has that as a Reference Point in one way or another in fact i doubt he could describe it to you. Hes interested in renegotiating the existing arrangements with the 2016 campaign promises. Its a kind of portfolio assessment commercial, diplomatic, military. He is reserving the right to walklk away. There are troops in poland more than they were under obama so the outcome isnt predetermined. It may in some cases be increased. I also talk a little bit about the Public Opinion and the relationship in the conservative opinion to the Trump Administration. And i found to my surprise the distribution of the opinion hasnt changed that much. He managed to turn that into a winning argumentti politically. The distribution hasnt changed that much. He hasnt changed the voters mind as much as you think. He made a big difference and captured a certain segment of the opinion for example most republicans had a negative opinion of putin ten years ago and most of a negative opinion on putin today. They supported nato ten years ago they do go down the list and that is the reality politically. Having said that i dool think there has been a longterm shift whereby the Republican Party has become more populist, culturally conservative, white workingclass voters have become more and more worked overtime at the base of the party and that is gointhat isgoing to have an e foreignpolicy including the trade policy. There is no gettingng around it. And he is as much a symptom as a cause. He has accelerated that would also represent the longterm shifts. So, i put not assume that just because he acts at the scene but the longterm shifts disappear. When its gone everything will snap back to 2014. They will make the case that they believe in and they can play the leading role. Olthe public is open to it. Theres a fair amount of support with the u. S. Activists in the world. But, some of the longterm shifts are real and they will probably outlast him and so there is going to have to beat russian building. Theres going to be more than one type of conservative, and they will have to figure out how to live within the same party not to mention what other independents and democrats. One way or another my conclusion would be the conservative nationalism is here to stay. Thank you. Me[applause] i ask you to say a few words. Thank you so much, ashley, for being here. I love the fact i didnt even need to put on a coat to come over from my office, and i appreciated your words of than thanks. Very kindly said he wouldnt have done this but i know he was because he was already working on it, but he was the first cohort of the program we have to aei which we are very proud to be named after Jean Kirkpatrick and he was one of the first scoffers to try to work on the policy related issues and move away from the Academic Work that they have been doing. A menu that you would be productive and indeed they were. I know everybody is super happy about it. Of course sitting next to richard i feel like im in the fulcrum here because richard was my legislative assistant when he was just a little thing. He hasnt changed a bit. This is a very sober and a fine treatment of things that confront us all and the thing that i like best about it is not simply that it delves into the origins of the different types of conservatism but it does so in a way that is absent of hysteria that characterizes pretty much every conversation about these issues that goes on today in washington. And it is going to have a sober conversation that doesnt actually reference twitter in any way. Sa although i bookmarked one part of this because i thought i know who you are talking about here so i than in the final chapter there is this quote. He was hardly optimistic about the new era. Scoundrels will bee honored and shame will vanish. It is true but the reality is. We are walking away from the commitment and the reality is there is the revision. We can all debate whether now is different is almost anybody has. We have a project at aei years ago that was in reaction to what we found to be rather nervous making rice of libertarian ide ideas. Its what i would call isolationism. I dont think of him as a realist. Its on the left as well as you watch last night nights debatel but on display a little bit andn so far as National Security. One thing we were looking at the American Public interest in the global engagement, and what you see is a very, very cyclical engagement, interest in a trump. If you go back to pretty much every president ial campaign, lets just pick this century we can go back further republican and democrat has been about turning. Its the economy, stupid. We can go on and on. Nation building here at home. Nation building with barack obama, but it could have easily been donald trump. Andil of course they run on thee slogans and then of course we endan up. I tend to focus on my area in the worl world that we are in a conflict in the middle east. Donald trump has been no different than the. I think the other point to make that i think is described is the view on these things are fairly constant. Just as we were drawing down troops in iraq, he went out and gave what was a relatively rare speech compared to george w. Ge. Bush and relatively rare speech talking about the importance of this, and then it went right back up again. The American People more to be led. Ironically that is true in most. Democracies. They want their leaders to make a persuasive case to them and when they make a persuasive case, whetherleer it is the engagement and commitment. I wouldnt call that a fickleness. I would call it a general lack of interest in the National Security. And i would be here in washington pay a lot of attention to this. And that isnt a bad thing. Where i think that you cant really pinpoint something that is i would call it an open question for the future, the populist trend versus in my mind much more than the tectonic shift in society rather than the sudden appeal of the donald trump of the world. We have Political Parties that have remained relatively static over the years especially in the United States without a parliamentary system where we dont get to just up and decide im going to create another political party. So you have these relatively static Political Parties also slightly over the years you have a public that has actually changed and feels as so many do around the world. That shouldnt be a surprise. The underpinnings of god. I commend to you the work of another scholar wrote a book called coming apart. In it he details the fact 50 years ago there were enormous cross class relationships in the United States. That doesnt happen anymore. And as a result weve become a much more fragmented. Its white colla collar was edud men who feel like the society has left them behind. What those people think about is usually important and could be a transformative driver. Could be that might not be and its hard for us to know one way or another. So this is something for all of us to think about. I was told to turn off my phone and of course i didnt. All of these come together and raise questions that arent just about article five. Its not about whether polling is saying 2 . It is an impact if those who care about this are not vigila vigilant. Let me know and i will pick them up on the way. [laughter] i though i thought i would get a few thoughts on some of the things that struck me in the book. Then eisenhower retrench is into jfk and nixon and ford. So you can see the sort of waxing and waning of the sort of maximum american exertion around the world and the thing that is the most from the biggest driver of this is at the end of the really long borders the americans become aficionados. The idealism tends to get thrown out the window and the exhaustion sets in and people say weve got to constrain a definition of the National Interest and then that goes on for a while and it starts to expand again. So i think that the Trump Administration is a piece of stuff that only partially a piece of that. They framed the sort of intellectual reaction to the conservative thinking about then foreignpolicy debate in the reaction to wilson. I think that the more salient the turning point is a 1945 frankly to the rest of the administration with whom they just dont agree. If you look post 1945 they were built into the policy or the principles. One is to maintain the peace, we would have strong alliances underwritten by the deployment of troops the others that you maintain prosperity and increase that we would support the open International Economic system underwritten by free trade. And then the third was the support of the forces of freedom and safeguard at home when possible we would have the bias and hatred of the systems as opposed to a talk with these and within the parties into the ideological stream as it is about how a you do this. When do you promote democracy. What are the tradeoffs andro hw many o, which is stationed and where. With trade deals an in the sortf things like that. But the questioning of the fundamental assumption in part because that was the reaction to the first half of this country when we saw the rise of the autocrats thought they could take over these large parts of it and so donald trump comes in and i think that his instincts are to reverse on these things. As pointed out, it isnt exactly a model of consistency on these things, so you can find all of these exceptions. Rather than seeing the troops in the American Alliance iss not having to return to this entry kind of thing, this is a really bad deal for the United States because the allies have been getting rich under the u. S. Protection and not paying their fair share. The International Economic agreement in freetrade is the position of the trade agreements and believe the trade deficits have harmed the little guy. And then they are not interested in the promotion of the human rights. Thereve been exceptions like venezuela and other things, but it just isnt a top priority. And some of these are trends. With obama you can see a similar trend in this direction. They wanted to dial back the commitments overseas in terms of the chestnut of a foreignpoli foreignpolicy. But its a very stark difference in wha the American Foreign poly had assumed to be the fundamental principles to the democratic conservative or liberal, but its complicated because the administration is hard to think of people who had as dying are a few of our allies is the president does it. So it ddelta be something more than the administration and more than the broader sort of cyclical up and down here. And i think part of this is new because we just never have point, the good common sense of the American People when appropriately applied can resolve the problems the country faces if there is a corrupt elite for its own purposes and things like that. We havent seen that as articulate and it is by no means a onan the republican side itsa very strong echo. They are out to get you by applying the common sense of the real American People however defined to sort of overcome the challenges that we face as a country. That then gets back into a little more philosophical but how do we identify. As recently as mitt romney, john mccain, george w. Bush probably would have been comfortable generally with the idea that its this place people can buy into this notion of the fundamental rights and freedom and i cant. And the hardline nationalist view is a particular set of people that within a particular geography which is the United States and that has to be protected so that raises issues much higher than thinking about the rights of others to live in peace or democracy or even overseas. So use al you solve this with pt trump quite obviously was much more concerned about north korean missiles. Its way to the american president s have thought about these things including on the right side. Its important to distinguish the issues that resonate and issues people voted on. It would be an interesting thing to see a poll of the people who voted for donald trump how many of them did so on the basis that they were irked by the japan and on the democratic side or the trump rallies the commitment to end the forever war resonates. They would take the position on this including ending the socalled forever war there isnt marches in the streets. They cant walk away from the immigration and trade and other things. You can get people to express an opinion but actually think the president , whether it much more than they think. I just dont think that they are bound to the base were things that resonate that are not the drivers ofes the vote. Finally the book concludes with the reflections on what will be andon should be the conservative Foreign Policy. We got a plan. They are not going to be there forever. Of course it was 1991 and they were all long gone. So who knows what is coming next and a lot of it will turn on him when the election Going Forward. This is a contribution to the debate so thank you for writing it. Actually makes things clear in ways that when you read them you think i knew that all along i just didnt have the ability to capture and this is one of those books. You end up thinking i knew that it. I want to come back to some of the mechanics because i know we come back to trump in some way and open discussion. The substructure of the movement as it was there had been isolationists, unilateralists and that for much of the postwar engagement with the nationalists annationalistinternationalists d us to maintain a Foreign Policy that is activist and expensive as the coalition has fragmented getting ways to the new alternative that is what explains in some ways the broad structure in which it tells us something that goes beyond the headlines. It produces the world order that we have seen post1945 and get today that is the inheritance that we have to deal with. The United States is no longer the old republics apart from the rest of the international. The management of that order. In this environment what is the future of the isolationist that brings trump tower . We dont have the luxury now sitting apart. We had before. Condemned to manage the world whether we likeke it or not i wt it oorwant it or not because our interests are tied to this world. And here it is a product of the nationalist coalition, not the product of the isolationist so even if you have the solution, there is a world out there that is different from the expectations and preferences of the trump coalition. So, how does one manage this and what do you see as the future for this coalition that brings. I think that there is more than one possibility. One is that it is not managed or is not managed very well. Maybe the Domestic Coalition is run up against a foreignpolicyy legacy is inherited legacies in ways that are just extremely disruptive. A lot of people think that is what we are seeing right now. However i did like the point that came up which is the role of the president ial leadership and persuasion. They have a lot of leeway and i say this in the book repeatedly they had to deal with a powerful midwestern nationalist wing and he handled it very effectively, not by actually confronting but i kind of coopting them at recognizing some of their concerns. You could imagine a future conservative republican president who bridges the gaps and understands the average voter is not voting on the exact amount. There is a shift that has demand toto demand respect on immigra immigration. Maybe to some extent, trade. As it turns out there are a lot of bluecollar republicans that see the multilateral Free Trade Agreement hurt them and their families over time. Politically, that is the fact. Its got to be recognized. Whether economists like it or not. I think youll see some new. It isnt going to look like bush or reagan or trump and a lot will depend on the specific leadership, so it is possible that these things can be managed in the way that is described. I think a lot of it depends on the president ial leadership. And what is the role of the distribution affect on the survival of the coalitions lax that is if for example we moved into a phase where there was a better distribution of the economy, a better distribution of the International Trade relations. Was that the convictions change . How much of this is the response to the loss of globalization so the question that i am getting at is what he is are these a ff the circumstances . Can people move from one group to another . The non interventionist strain was never politically relevant. Relevant. That just isnt how the conservative republicans held. The reality was an understood the threat. So these events matter. Circumstances matter. I think trump recognized publicly he turned out to have political sensitivities in 2015 at that moment to the fact that we didnt realize the potential appeal that protects the platform. However, oddly enough if they feel coming up to november that he has represented them well and hes been negotiated, then theretheres any way politicalo say if he chooses its not completely walk away from afghanistan. Lets not disband nato in the second term. He can do that. He has the ability to do that. Depending on the exact decisions over syria one way or another. And it isnt because of the personality. Its becauset of support for te president s of their party. The same thing happenesame thin. So i think that if for example there is a shocking military event, some crisis and the floor breaks down, we might see a second term with radically different than the first. This isnt unusual historically. You could have a Foreign Policy that changes quite a bit if the war occurs whether the president likes it or not. I think part of the problem thatat we have and that is becoming more and more common as we look inward as we deny the agency to everybody else. The truth is there are two huge factors that we havent talked about butt have had a very, very meaningful influence over the last century. The first is the financial crisis. We talked about the depression, but the financial crisis of 2008 is incredibly impactful and had a huge effect on what i describe as they tectonic shift in the leaving a comment that is part one. To use the vernacular, it happens overseas. And so, what happened when we take our eye off the ball understanding that its underwritten since the end of world war ii to a certain extent prior to that that when we cease to do so, these things happen anand these bad things to suck s back in because they are the kind of events that are described if the war breaks out, 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. This program and one of my favorite conversations when i was marveling at how much i couldnt understand the Administration Rather different than the conventional, but still. And she said no, because in the second term, george bush is the president that he would have been had 9 11 not happened and that is what happened because im a good internationalist. Interventionist. These events and drew us back in and if we stop for a second and dont look quite at these enthusiastic things we have been the past few years we are looking at a world in which there are very, very serious threats to not just the global order that we have sustained and that has made us all pretty rich, even fo the people that fl like they were not. But that there are also other factors out there we dont talk about as much. But have a huge potential for fr disruption if we dont talk about the nonproliferation at all, but a proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass distraction. If you look historically, and i think it is still true if changes people will assume the preference if they werpreferencd enough about the threat is the 1940a1945 can you 1945, you still have robert taft and all these guys that were not on the elite isolationists if not more of a part of their ideological impulse for this is because they didnt want to maintain the socalled National Security state i and this brougt a standing army, the huge federal iraq christie that collected taxes from everybody because they were a small government conservative. There were a few holdouts but mostly it was a secondtier kind of thing so you may prefer not to have the government kind of in your face but theres somethinthere issomething bigget and then the same thing is true after 9 11 there was the military intervention necessary to cope with terrorism in different places and stabilize the countries in different areas and things like that and so the conservatives in the 1990s were really trying to chip away at what they thought was the National Security state that had grown up over the cold war and was no longer necessary but suddenly we are back in business and began. So, isa mean a real whether there is a war that could see china as the big nature perceived to hate the word x. Essential but existential challenge in the sense that it is from the core of the things that we enjoy here in the united case. That goes back to richards point. Then there unilateralist. It is a place with the religious background the senate definitio definition. And he argued. Only thing i would add to shat is for the drivers of populism right now. And nationalism. With the inequality. There are also cultural n aspects. And it crested right around over one and now we are seeing it again. And that is embraced with the country where renewing phenomenon. And then you see this resonance to do stuff with a lot of americans and defining and how you to find that noun so those are our ebbs and flows. So one of my favorite interviews. When the european allies would do to support it. And in the wake of 9 11 and were arguing about what it was. Why they wouldnt do more. Is an important factor not just for us before thes chinese. And in defense of donna for quite some time if you have more old people then young people and the job of the young people is to sustain and pay for and work and they dont want them to be sent off. And those critics about china. And those nations of an iimmigrants. That is the energy of the growth of the comes from. And to lie solely upon american americans. I will open the discussion and to identify yourselves and ask is a comment or question. So trade sovereignty. And is not going to go away anytime soon. And not only in the us. And with the security and National Interest. And with the intensification. Begins to love lou the overall environment. And with those calculations so this is one of the most striking and unexpected changes in the last five years. Andd with those recommendations. And i actually give them credit on china and that issue that needed to be addressed. And that was underappreciated. And those trade disputes with allies. That makes sense and strategically or economically. And so there is a kernel of truth. And that needs to be iaddressed. And that coordinated effort to do t that. And with different fights with allies and with the eu. The germans are very worried so i agree there is a trend toward protectionism and a historic shift and that also seems to be one of the single biggest areas that really have an a problem with the administration and to put their foot down but that is a sore spot. It. Then we hear about and then with the allies. So i dont see this as a historic a shift as you are describing there has been a vast gulf be one by the elites of the members of a congress. That the elites were far more willing and their constituents and then to remember how that shifted and what the constituency was that was a pure sign again between the leaders and the people. And then the mentality that we were elected to lead not be here in front of a mob. So what it is that people really want thats what this is about people are so confused that donald trump got elected that is washington for you its not that there is a narrowing. So the second point that is really important that you never talk about im sorry im not a spy as i once was so it was created in the wake of world wariz ii that you dont require reform for the United Nations or the wto and then to be hugely sporadic and to meet the challenges of a Digital Economy to claim the intellectualproperty Climate Change or competition they have not involved but yet nobody talks about these issues. Is so the trade stuff and that skepticism it will not go away because the trade agreement is the proxy for discomfort so i dont get to vote on container i shipping or those markets or the broadband exports and the trade agreements are up for a vote and you dont get to vote on automation because there are two remedies to this that ignore everybody who has hurt hed harmed whatever that economic phenomenon. So there is the conceptually attractive want to retrain the people nor can they be retomated away. For those that are 99 percent secure. And that effectively takes the man or the woman that works in manufacturing and with the same sense of purpose. And ideally becomes a programmer in seattle. Is just very very hard to see how that works. And fort to cross on Cross National boundaries. And yet we have to manage those consequences without the solutions. So if you protect them that also is the right answer. To have empathy with those who are affected and then to come out being even worse. So one quick followup so you had a narrow we leave Winning Coalition and with pennsylvania and michigan. And that Michael Bloomberg didnt have a great night. So wouldnt take the lead so put it that way you might get a commitment. And you mentioned the conservatism nationalism to see the same trend or shift but are your views on nationalism compatible or not compatible . And to put forward of nationalism but to have a staunch defense. And that there is a benign element. With constitutional selfgovernment. And with that part of abstract social construct theory. And then that own version and to bound up of Classical Liberal ideas. And then to have the right to give a speech for the internal human rights abuses. So why is it americas business. And for that basis. Thats the difference. A brilliant political theorist. It is not about Foreign Policy it is immigration and there is a book that i recommend it might sound like the a title but eric kaufman is the author and the single biggest cause of the rise of populism particularly in europe of past migration and the fact this is causing a feeling that traditional majorities will no longer be majorities. And that encourages the rise. And that continue to be migration from africa. And with the coming century and if thats true and i think it is what the governments decide to do about it. And those parties are not going away with those underlying factors. They tend to be much more skeptical. And with that national sovereignty. In which was interesting. And with immigration and what is interesting. Otherwise and you are not pro putin with with a conservative. And of course we will have combinations. And there is such a thing. And there is such an american nation. And the nation state. But nevertheless the state of the nation. And that america tends to be bottomup. And historically the american nation state. And with the us civil war. And the United States. Multiple. It was a single United States. And then to embody that determination. And by force if necessary. And there is that forceful element to it. And transnational governments. Governance. And have effective control over of american that i thank you should and as a distinct nation . And a restored sense to have a nation called the United States. And to ask the question to describe how Global Trends are running of the existence with the multilateral institutions. Not that europe as an entity hasnt tried it with a nationalistic response. And to have a multilateral institution. And that goes back to the originalitac observation to address the global problems that we have. So then ultimately to come back to theob observation and then we really do need to address the question at the multilateral level. Thats where the inadequacy really is flowing. Becauseoi it will be difficult to be a genuine nationalist selfdescribed of the virtue of those initiatives. And some sovereignty. And that was the exact solution and that defined nation. And with that constitutional commitment. And if that becomes the definition then the United States can survive and prosper as a nation state. There is no particular definition. Its when you start with that consumption within countries. So it is a multilateral dimension to it but those have to be absorbed within those countries themselves. And the definition it is a catch22 talking about two different things. Along with migration. Because one immigrants come to European Countries with the exception of a little bit of england. Hear what the country stand for. And to have these people who come in with that civic nationalism and so they are forever outside and increasingly there is that element of conservativism. Who think of us as white anglosaxon protestant and that is what makes america so matter if you believe in the American Dream orie not. We will never be a part of it. That is exacerbated by the left and during the playing of the national anthem, they are not holy american and then without a hyphenated attachment. And because of them they actually come together and to prioritize a multilateral fix to any of them. To they belong and if they belong and how to manage it. I want to ask you with the change of demographics with generations he coming in one z coming into the mix . And affecting the thought process of nationalism Going Forward . And even now the more millennials shaping Public Opinion . So on that Public Opinion over years and hundreds of students in underground graduates. Ou so millennials are a little more skeptical than other generations. None of that has been a positive experience so this is not the 9 11 generationti anymore. So if 9 11 was a form of experience and the war is dragging on and with that such successful collusion conclusion of the cold war and that was a big moment. So that matters and that crosses party lines so then you find some republicans who share that view. So thats not to say that things can change. And to develop different views but that millennials tend to be more skeptical. But as a matter of fact why do we need to intervene . There is a peaceful solution. And with this interdependence of what i find interesting. It with a natural pessimist us on put that pessimist. So that is how millennials are changing. And this general sense that may be specifically respect to nationalism. And it was all about multinational corporations and individuals and organizations and the eclipse of the nationstate as a building block. Networks and certainly you feel like isys as a nationstate. But if you look at the Global Financial crisis those that have to turn on the monetary spigot and then they have to use fiscal policy to pull out of the financial crisis. There was really very little you could do in fact the governments role is up rather than down. Right at this moment where the nationstate is eclipsed more than anything else. So there is the reality that for all of the desire for the multilateral framework, big corporations that have ceos to move opinion and technology around the world it really is the nationstate that isth the primary actor. And not in terms of the multilateral framework and make a conscience to sit on a conscious decision to constrain their decisionmaking and then get a different one a better outcome at a different level. So this as an issue to unite a lot of different factions. And syria, retrospect, but when it comes to china. We do have the book on sale outside of the room you are welcome to pick up a copy. Thank you. V see you soon. In his book between two fires, joshua moscow correspondent for the new yorker details life in russia under vladimir putin. Hello, everyone. Thank you for the wonderful introduction for coming out to see the wonderful joshua yaffa. We go back quite a number of years especially when he opened to get his accreditation at the foreign industry from the Foreign Affairs magazine when i was a creditor from f