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