Speaking of engagement, i hope you will take the opportunity during our interview to doing todays discussion by submitting questions as we go along. You can do that by clicking the q a button at the bottom of your screen. Today, as vicente mentioned, we are joined by my friend robert zoellick, he has served america and served her well across multiple administrations and in a range of key roles in the late 80s he served as counselor to the secretary of the treasury under secretary of state as well as White House Deputy chief of staff. In the george w. Bush years he served as ab and later president of the world bank. Hes received numerous honors the state departments highest award, the treasury departments Alexander Hamilton award, and dod medal for distinguished public service. The American Government werent the only ones, the German Government awarded him the night commanders cross, the Mexican Government awarded him their aztec eagle and chili gave chile abof course the author of a remarkable new book america in the world the history of u. S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, bob, welcome, its great to see you again. Thank you mark, its a privilege to be here with cindy and the first of the series i had the great privilege of considering john mccain a friend, he was a hero, a leader but also a voracious reader. This was a nice way of recognizing that legacy. Thats wonderful. Its really great to have you with us for our first in the series. Beginning with the obvious, what led you to write this book . What was your inspiration . Like senator mccain i always respected the work of henry kissinger, kissinger wrote a book a number of years ago titled diplomacy, and it he used history to talk about Foreign Policy but it tends to be written from european perspective. For years ive been playing with the idea of how might i do something that in some of the ideas and experience from the american perspective. The structure, the approach i took in this book is in the same way cindy mentioned, the book to focus on characters and individuals in leadership. I focused on people and events and the practical work of diplomacy. I suppose one of the other purposes i had is that the field of the diplomatic history as it used to be known as faded a little bit over the years. For understandable reasons people try to bring in different types of perspectives and actors and ideas but it led to a bit of a fragmentation and i wanted to try to draw those back together, there was a history professor at harvard who now will have a good book out on john f. Kennedy, he wrote a piece of saying, this is a way to come back a little bit to political history. Insofar as those subjects subjects are so talk they focus more on the postworld war ii era i want to go back to the first hundred 50 years of american because theres a lot of interesting characters and people and perhaps one of the benefit which is many of those years the u. S. Didnt have overwhelming power by her former secretary matters comment recently that he was troubled with the United States to have total domain dominance. And much of our history we didnt have total domain dominance abi try to focus on methods of diplomacy as well as some people and ideas. Im going to pick up on that last point you just made. May be a slightly contrary point of view, i actually think the subtitle of the book the history of u. S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in some ways thats not quite on the mark because as i see it its less a history and more a diagnosis. May be what we really have in this great book is we have an explanation for modern audiences of what the various strands of u. S. Diplomacy are. Does not make sense to you . Many books about Foreign Policy understandably are written by scholars and they want to come up with intellectual frameworks or themes i wanted to let the characters tell the story and in the process revive some of the ideas of that experience that have influenced american Foreign Policy, as you see in the stories, some of them come back so the question is, they may appear again. Just to give you two very different examples, one of my only chapters is on Alexander Hamilton where i wanted to talk about economic state graph but also how he connected the diplomacy to the economic design and strategy for the United States but 100 years later i involved a character that many people will not have recalled, Charles Evans hughes even though he almost won the presidency in 1960 four woodrow wilson. Thats a story about arms control naval arms control but also regional security. Yet i think there is lessons one can draw from that topics as diverse as north korea or iran. Its interesting to me that what the book tells me, it isnt a neat progression, you have a chapter on this doctrine or this tradition, turn the page and go to the next one. As you point out, things come in and go out and there is a constant interplay. Just about every review i read in your book includes the following sentence from page 9 of your book b over 200 years u. S. Diplomacy sought out what works even if practitioners stumbled while discovering what they could accomplish. Thats obviously a push for a fragment is in. I want to suggest i think a better or perhaps more nuanced encapsulation Dwight Eisenhower called it a fever pitch in the old cold war defined prudently for the long haul. Jfk learn to deal pragmatically with crises. Ronald reagan set Ambitious Goals yet was willing to negotiate abreally it is less a neat progression of traditions and more a constant interplay or traditions depending on the leader and depending on circumstance with different traditions perhaps taking the day. I decided it would be an overwhelming task to write a full comprehensive history and probably less readable. Have already designed this for people who enjoy biographies. As john mccain enjoyed biographies. I think people are away you bring the stories to life. For each person and try to associate it with an episode or a brief era of issues. As well as an idea i try to associate hamilton with economic state graph jefferson was the futurist because for John Quincy Adams of sort of american realism. I tried to come up with a menu of ideas that i think people thinking about Foreign Policy today could look at and say how does that show up here . At the same time you got leaders like Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt known for some soaring rhetoric and big vision and city on a hill and when you look at their greatest accomplishments it was oftentimes that which occurred behind the scenes was incremental and where they had to nudge things along probably with some in patients but in terms of accomplishment their greatest accomplishment. Teddy roosevelt is a good example. If you think about Teddy Roosevelt we often associate him as Lieutenant Colonel who went up San Juan Hill and the great white fleet indeed if you go to the roosevelt room today youll see this picture of colonel roosevelt, steering horse this is the west wing of the white house. Below it is the Nobel Peace Prize. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1905a906 for mediating the retro japanese war. Thats interesting because while one often thinks of him in terms of his bully aggression, he used that discipline as a mediator, extraordinary effectively. This is the time for the same active it really have a diplomatic service. Part of one roosevelt does is enlist the support of the german, the french ambassadors to the United States, and groomsmen who was a british diplomat. They see hes a guy who gets things done, hes got a magnetic approach. I think that was one of the great skills of our Alliance Leaders is to pull other countries to our side. I also include in that one the first moroccan crisis, which he mediates. He does it quietly because your predecessors in the Congress Different want to be in european affairs. Thats an interesting incident. Most people wouldnt have heard about it. If you think about it, its one of those aproblems on the periphery of europe that couldve led to ajust as it did in the balkans in less than a decade. Its a good example of sort of his skill set but also how he pulls people together and in the case of reagan, i think many of us admired reagan but we often try to have a sense of what was at the particular skill. I went back and looked closely at reagans political career for people who follow politics often know that he was most noted for best speech in 1964 speech he gave in goldwaters doomed political effort. The representative how reagan came to terms with ideas, in a sense he was fighting the cold war in the battle of ideas. All those years when he was out of office he was quite a careful writer of reeded radio scripts. He would delve into subjects, he would think do and then articulate them in his writing and speaking. He was a friend of mine who served as staff secretary unfortunately now passed away said reagan was offered and noted at the great communicator but in fact he was the great editor. A very skillful writer. Most historians have a hard time quite understanding, how do speeches make the policy . I think the speeches were a key to reagans focus and conviction on big ideas but they also had to be combined. This is the point you alluded to stop by bring in secretary schultz into this chapter because reagan, while great and articulated his position, also love negotiating as did schultz. Explain how the two items fit together and i draw with one other point. President reagan was not a detailed man. Parts of his administration where the people in charge didnt serve him as carefully as in iran or the middle east there could be trouble but as you saw the way schultz in Foreign Policy and my former boss jim baker in the first term with domestic agenda and the second term of the treasury, on subordinates, roosevelt built his own subordinates, will select those subordinates. I think thats also part of an effective Foreign Policy team. In some ways its less about strictly speaking pragmatism and more about something that mario cuomo what said during the campaign aas you campaign in poetry and you govern in a what i wanted to stress from a pragmatic site is that many of the books on Foreign Policy try to put things in categories or models. What i was trying to explain to people is when i was the daily german unification in 1989 or the trade policy or others the models are realism, idealism or offshore balancing or other issues dont take you very far. I was trying to suggest my experience as well as study of Foreign Policy in the United States emphasize people go beyond the intellectual abstractions to the messy facts of trying to solve problems. You know as a member of congress, how do you get other people to get things done and also perhaps except that you get imperfect results far from perfect world. Thats where the practice really incurs. The core of your book is what you refer to as the five traditions. I tried to pull the stories together with some of these traditions that appear over time. The first one is the one i share with senator mccain the importance of north america. Obviously in the 19th century particularly for arizonans a very important part of our history with our neighbors and borders also in the 20th century, we almost went to war with mexico in 1960, the germans tried to draw mexico into world war i to take back arizona and new mexico and texas for some reason they left out california. If you think about the cuban missile crisis the big Nuclear Showdown in the cold war is taking place in the caribbean in the same sphere. Is think about nafta where senator mccain was also a leader, that was much more of the trade agreement trying to reorient mexico changing from the one party system to more outward oriented environment. I would take it a step further, if you ask what Many Americans are interested today and Foreign Policy they might give you topics such as immigration or topics such as economic development. Of the five traditions you have in the book i think this is the one often overlooked. Often time in discussions people look a Long Distance forgetting that the Common Market that is canada mexico u. S. As well as other countries is a great power and great importance. Its interesting when you think about it every president up to donald trump and since jimmy carter has taken their first overseas trip to canada or mexico. Teddy roosevelt went to panama on his first trip and donald trump the businessman, he may not have gone to canada or mexico the first overseas trip in his first trade deal obviously focused on canada and mexico. Even if it hasnt been front and center for us, it obviously has been quietly a fundamental part of our strength and Foreign Policy. I hope so. I think this will be one of the issues debated because focusing on building a wall is a little different than trying to unite the north american region as one set of partnerships. Another one of the traditions i dont think is thought about enough is what you term as public and congressional support. Obviously most americans think of Foreign Policy as solely the part of the portfolio of our chief executive absome of the outcomes might have been different. To the extent your book has a hero, i would submit that senator vandenburg is probably that hero. He talked a great deal about not a bipartisan Foreign Policy but a nonpartisan Foreign Policy. He is one that i wanted to bring back from the distant midst of the past. And parts of the reason you mentioned its a theme and try to draw in through the chapters from the start when i look at ben franklin trying to negotiate our independence in the revolutionary war i note the challenge and relations with congress abfranklin responds and says, i dont know of any Peace Agreement that didnt find some people with complaints. He said i think blessed are the peacemakers belongs to the next life, not this one. I think in vandenburg it was part of the chapter i wrote about the creation of the alliances in the 1947b9. This is an area thats been written about but i wanted to try to draw in some characters, a little less known. The other is will clayton, set up much of the economic side. Vandenburg was a newspaper editor from michigan, in some ways he was a mentor for gerald ford. He also wrote histories, he was a good writer, i he had a Great Respect for hamilton. It was interesting window you which you would know well is about the challenges of Foreign Policymaking from the congress. He really comes to the fore in terms of helping truman after 1945. He has to maintain his political standing as an Opposition Leader has to be an opponent but he does it while legislating. That chapter is full of wonderful insights on how he brings things together. areferred to his doctrine of political transubstantiations, which is based on the christian concept of communion and the transforming the bread and the wine into the body and the blood but vandenburg ab referred to vandenburg in this in a humorous way and said the way vandenburg was work as he would start off skeptical about a proposal then he would find one element, not necessarily the poor one but make a big deal of it and then he would come up with a fix inevitably the vandenburg amendment. The process he draw together his colleagues instead of builds party support. We could see him do this time after time. One that i found particularly striking the constitution refers to the advice and the consent of the senate on treaty but congress normally comes in on the consent part not the advice part. In 1948 the Marshall Plan was just getting going but was clear we would need a security arrangement to complement it, both to deal with the soviets but also reassure the french and other europeans as germany the new west germany was brought in. Vandenburg puts together on his own insights six paragraphs of what would be a potential resolution to guide the executive branch on negotiations. He holds a couple days of closed sessions with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee going through these paragraphs and in the process outlined the approach to change americas historical reluctance to join allies. Hes being quite careful, hes trying to learn the lessons of Woodrow Wilsons failure about the Constitutional Authority and Congressional Authority and also the role of the un and regional agreements because he had been a key in bringing the un into form. He was a good vote counter and for executive Branch Partner and my staff somebody who knows how to bring your colleagues along. The larger point, as you identified, throughout American History there are key members of congress often in the senate but sometimes as you know in the house who step up and play a role in this. Course i was thinking about senator mccain and this when i work with senator mccain in the 90s, this was in the Clinton Administration he played a key role in the opening of the hima vietnam. He clearly meant toward a generation or more of members of congress with the Munich Security Conference or others. There are other people, senators lugar and none, and you are part of this tradition having built a career across the legislative and executive branches but it arranges a question for the future to have a successful Foreign Policy would be there members of the senate or house looking forward who can help play this role for the president and secretary of state. You stole my thunder that was the question i was going to post. Something i loved in your book, you noted that in 1946 alone vandenburg spent 213 days either at un or council of foreign minister meetings in london, new york, or paris. That would make mccain a piker and we used to always joke about how often the travel. Mccain it went to those locations he would stop about a dozen places along the way for three hour and for our stops, usually and godforsaken parts of the world. I think that is an open question, isnt it . Whos going to step forward and play the mccain role the vandenburg role, regardless of who wins in november in terms of the presidency that person will need a strong partner, the other thing it does is create sustainability and Foreign Policy. Especially if it crosses party lines i look at some of the great accomplishments in my field and development from the challenge corporation to ab initiative as much as we all want to point out the jury doesnt push and drove them, hed be the first to say they wouldve not survived. They would not have been sustainable if not for dynamic leadership from democrats in congress. Tom lantos and others really made a huge difference. I think you are right i think it probably is an open question. Also jim kobe, this shows you a little better however it works with the administration first, but the idea for the Millennium Challenge Corporation i was a u. S. Trade representative and they didnt think about the connection of trade and development. Ob and i, kobe always brings trade, we decided the u. S. Trade representative should also be part of the process. Thats another element i try to draw into the book, whether it was people like baker, my boss, Charles Evans hughes, ruth, theres a skill for executive Branch Officials that understand how to work with congress, how to bring people along on these issues, just as there is an importance for people like yourself and the congress that understand that they play a Critical Role in building longerterm and broader public support. I couldnt agree more. I would say my days when i was an assistant which was probably the most important Training Ground for the work i went on to do as ambassador because you had to learn where people came from, what mattered to them and how you could bring them around. Another one of the traditions you alluded to several times is the Important Role that our alliances have played. Our role with and through our alliances, in some ways that particular tradition is under particular stress these days and for many its probably out of fashion. If vandenburg was a hero in your book, i would say, you have a certain biased to it of course. The dream team in your book were the days under bush 41 ending the cold war through our alliances the type of Alliance System america graded after world war ii is different than the old European Military alliance. Vandenburg is quite explicit on this point, he said its an alliance based on diplomacy. We often think about it just because of nato or or American Military power. Underneath it is a broader sense of connections. While bush 41 was a careful gentleman and very puritan. He was fiercely competitive. So he wanted to win and frankly with gorbachev being the star and International Scene bush wanted to make sure he ported points on the board. Baker was the action officer, baker was there to get things done. This 89 period something many historians have overlooked they focused on the soviet union was our first question was not the russia question. It was the german question. We had germany in the united germany from 1871 on had been a Destructive Force in europe. While we supported unification, wanted to try to do so and embedded in a transatlantic and the European Union structures of today. Not even marked a shift in some priorities, in the very first part of 1989 president bush came up with his very bold conventional forces glaciation initiative. Most histories you will see dont even discuss it. Notice the shift from a focus on Strategic Nuclear arms to conventional forces, thats because he believed that the cold war wasnt over until the source of the problem that started it, the division of germany and europe was resolved. That could be done until soviet forces went home. It also dealt with the appeal of gorbachev to the germans because the only Nuclear Weapon left in europe at that time were short range missiles, as the german said the short of the missiles, the debtor the germans. It was a strategy as well as a diplomatic method. As you say, they applied the same approach to putting together the gulf war coalition. Working with the un but leaving and driving the un and just to give you a sense of how you can tie these together, i remember that baker was quite concerned about whether we would get the support in the senate for the resolution to go to war. He consciously believed that if we could get the Un Security Council to support us in the prospect of the first gulf war it would be much harder for members of the senate not to support it. Gave us a sense of how those get combined. The other thing about president bush i tried to draw out in this chapter is his historical role tends to be associated with ending the cold war or the gulf war but if you step back and look at the ct planted for nafta, uruguay round of trade negotiations with creates the wto. Asiapacific economic cooperation, middle east peace process, frankly, the only Global Climate change treaties in the senate has ratified, which i was deeply involved with, creates the framework for the harris accord and everything that flows from it, all those start in the bush 41 administration. Theres an irony as often as in history which dominic with a little distance in time many of the aspects on the clinton agenda the bush 43 agenda in a sense flow from this one term president. Its interesting, if, as i suggest, have less a neat progression in our history but more traditions and leaders coming in and out, you point out that after 9 11 it was a vandenburg contribution article 5 of nato that was invoked to help us in the early days after 9 11. Tradition coming in and out and making a contribution. Its actually i think the only time it wasnt was to help the president of the United States. It shows the twoway nature of alliances. One of the topics you touched upon, something i know is near and dear to your heart and certainly a cool part of your own career is the importance of economic state a trade, technology, what do you point out that may be something that is distinctive in americas approach to Foreign Policy as opposed to some countries. For americans trade is about much more than money. It is simply about commerce, it is important as commerce is or financial commerce its about something much more. This really has its origins in the nature of the country. Many people without be totally unaware is that while john adams served with jefferson in 1776 as they came up with the declaration of independence. Adams chaired his own committee which is to come up with the model treaty of the United States. Its basically a trade treaty. Remember the context. This is where histories context is very vital, the United States is born in a world of empires and mercantilism and colonies. And government state directive assistance. From the start United States liberties and private parties are what political scientists were called transnational actors whether missionaries like your family or whether economic actors or engineers or others, with the notion of being part of americas presence in the world and how do we try to expedite that. The navy is obviously important in opening japan to trade and modernization in the 1850s. Secretary of state john hayes has the opendoor doctrine in 1899 and 90, that i talk about americas interest in china and while the rest of the world want to carve china up like they carved up africa United States wanted to support chinas territorial integrity. We have a tremendous breakdown of trade in the 1930s after this abraises tariffs up to an average of 59 percent and trade profits between 40 and 60 and that points out that trade relations could also be critically linked to economic political and even security and stability because the world breaks into trade blocs. At that time the start of the recovery comes from secretary of state cornell hall, former longtime member of Congress Ways and means committee, long supporter of trade, he convinces fdr to support whats called the reciprocal trade Agreements Act of 1934 and any member of Congress Today would be shocked the bill is about three pages long. Its a momentous switch because it authorizes the executive branch to negotiate terror productions. At that point they didnt even have to come back for congressional approval this is the start of what later became trade promotion authority, the executives role he negotiates i think 20 september 2, 2028 or 29 but 31 agreements or 28 or 29 countries but its important as lowering tariffs are, the more important part is the principles establishing in those agreements. Which become the basis of god system later the wto after world war ii. Which becomes the basis for extraordinary economic growth. Theres a key point here which, and whole has to deal with this, the trade here was not managed straight dominic trade where youre trying to get packaging, it was to move rules of the system which we felt that a fair system would serve the u. S. Interest. In fact, whole had this big battle with one of his competitors who unfortunately can for the competitor kicks not picks nazi germany as his trade agreement. Hi whole convinces roosevelt this wouldnt be so popular back in the United States if nazi germany uses its own resources to develop its military. So the strands of these stories keep coming back in wonderful ways. And i like the fact that you made reference to the a challenge Corporation Many ways all that comes together because ncc is something that partner countries were interested and because it does provide obviously resources, assistance to do things they might not otherwise be able to do but also dominic all based upon their willingness to lower barrier, their willingness to adopt certain principles and show evidence of reform and commitment to the elements of liberty. Whether it be transparent governance or citizen responsive governance so it really does get all together so maybe thats best expression of both commerce and development. This is another one where senator mccain and i used to work together, a lot of Navy Officers did if you go back and read the works of alfred mann, the great naval strategist, he was a big believer in open trade and influence and hes had abthey are good for defense but not for office. Mckay was naval strategist as well as trade strategist. Im going to open it up here to some questions. I have this question from michael paul, ambassador pulp of the Mccain Institute. He says most analysts argue that u. S. Foreign policy is disastrous at worst and ineffective at best. Set aside for the moment the recent middle east deal, what lessons do you draw from our diplomatic history that should inform our Foreign Policy starting next january . I think in some ways President Trump is the exception as opposed to the rule. Others have commented on this, its a very transactional Foreign Policy. What weve talked about alliances and rules and frameworks, he tends to look at things in a casebycase dealmaking manner and obviously relates a lot to his own sense of position and how he gets treated, sometimes sad to say more by authoritarians than with his democratic partners. I think also this part isnt unusual but helps one understand his Foreign Policy is very much connected to his domestic political base. If you think about the wall with mexico, we talk about north america, that was one of the ways that he connected with his political supporters from the start. I always knew that issue would never go away. Even when he couldnt get funding he takes out the Defense Department because he couldnt walk away from that. Similarly on trade production, thats another core issue at the base. He also has an oddity that wanted to be different from his president s dominic predecessors, so where they didnt go see the north korean leader, he would, if they had to deal with iran, he would pull it out. As for where it goes from here, one of the challenges is going to be if biden is elected, hes going to have a heck of a domestic agenda. Hes going to have a pandemic, hes going to have inclusive economic recoveries, afraid healthcare system, racial issues, environmental issues. Climate change topics. Its abimmigration issues. As you know, you can only get so much done in the. [singing] system at once and whether it was carter or clinton or obama, they have to decide where their priorities are and if they misjudge it and dont get things done than they have a problem after their first two years. I think internationally one of the ways President Biden could deal with this could be the Leverage Office domestic agenda. If we could do something with dreamers and immigration, lets do something with mexico where the relations had been frayed and there is trouble brewing down there economically and politically. If he does something on the Climate Change issue, dont just go back into paris but how can you leverage that with the developing growth. Similarly, on the economic agenda, what you do at home, we need to get Global Growth going forward. I could imagine that agenda being a good basis for restoring relation with allies and also dealing with the fundamental questions of the future of freedom, free societies and partners and how we deal with china. I think you could draw those back together but it will be a big challenge because expectations will be very high, you know this from politics, there will be a fight on the democratic side because its not only a question of policy given by its future the party. Youll need a very disciplined chief of staff and National Security advisor to drive these priorities. I think also with due respect to michael i think one of the lessons of your book is that weve been here before. If we look at the interplay of forces, President Trump may focus a lot on his base and the politics that drive them as well as the importance of a growing economy and trade deals and commerce, these are traditions that have always been at play, just different forces come to bear at different points in history. I guess what are your lessons from the book is, its not a need for direction, we been here before and every administration deals with these combination of forces and influences. Keep in mind, the. [singing] is more than a president. Its also a huge dynamic private sector. This is the summer of pandemic but also the summer of spacex. Or if were having trouble with the who from the white house level, the Gates Foundation is making a tremendous contribution. I think its the second largest funded. Even within the government the federal reserves not only help the u. S. System but, frankly, these swath lines that created the first and financial crisis have been critical to keeping liquidity going. I think the american system has a huge resiliency. Because we debate in public, theres abits always a struggle but thats how we come to terms with ourselves. Im a little worried about the International System because as my book talks about with alliances and economic arrangements, once frayed they can be harder to put put back together. And were looking at it interplay of forces triggerions influences, we see politics a Campaign Driving some of the president s message but at the same time we have the peace deal, the normalization of relations that does not announce. On one hand hesitantly drive campaign and poetry but behind the scenes hes put together a deal that is of historical significance. That will be interesting going back to this point i made about charles hughes. I dont think you can see armscontrol as a technical subject. You have to see it related to regional security. The question here will be whether it can be built on, whether other arab countries will now come in. Whether we can use it in dealing with the challenge of irans behavior, not just the nuclear program. And whether you can combine those two together. That will be the next challenge for the next stage of diplomacy in the region wherever it is. And grouped together several questions that have been sent in we are also seeing in the Trump Administration and increasing focus on building alliances with respect to iran and with respect to china, the socalled great power competition. On one hand the president drives a Campaign Message and a campaign year, at the same time, his team is working to build alliances that may shift a bit but deal with important challenges facing the country. We talked a little bit about that in the gulf in the mideast context. I think of the china context we are not quite there yet. The president has berated the koreans about what they are supposed to pay for American Forces and similar on trade with japan and korea. Those countries make big contributions but we never want to treat American Forces abroad as if they are mercenaries to be serving their. I think actually the chinas rise and some of the behavior has created an opportunity to work with india, australia, japan, others in the region. But those countries dont expect to contain china. These cannot be returned to the cold war. I think we have to be somewhat deft in terms of how we try to put together that coalition. It also depends on what you want to accomplish with china. Frankly, its not hard, this is one of the themes of the book, to complain about something but what results do you want to try to accomplish . Im not sure we are there yet in our directions with china. If we have an interplay of traditions and influences guiding Foreign Policy and after november whether it be President Trump or President Biden got one question here, how do we think american Political Polarization will affect it . How will that either strengthen or, my implication more likely, weekend some of our approach to Foreign Policy in the world. Thats a wonderful and very important question i will start with a little historical reference. Lake 1945, this is right after the end of world war ii, the American People were told about the importance of International Relations and i think it was seven percent decided International Relations were a priority because they were interested in reconversion and giving back jobs. I think a 1946 it rose up to 14 percent . This is also been up aalways been up to the leaders considered constructed. If you look at what average americans are thinking about alliance relationships, trade relationships, americans are proud of the leadership role, they understand alliance relations. They want to be strong militarily but on one overuse the power. Is actually much more support for trade then you see in congress because i think Interest Groups and drive those considerations. That brings us right back to what you and i were talking about with the congress, the president plays a key leadership role that as weve seen in key moments here Building Support from members of congress particularly members in the house who got healed for these districts that is an important part. Your background was quite unusual given your family and missionary background but i think maybe with younger members now served in the military Intelligence Service the question is how can we draw them together to recognize you need a different approach with different times. Just doesnt editorial comment and actually quite polished about the congress as you just alluded to there are a number of newer perhaps more junior members at this time with real practical often times battlefield experience that make them more likely to reach across the aisle and construct Productive Solutions to some of our challenges. At the very time we talk about american disengagement we should also point out that under the Trump Administration the same that continues to be the largest provider of humanitarian assistance in the world. When you look at the number of disasters that the u. S. Is responding to, in some cases a Record Number of disasters the u. S. Under President Trump continues to step forward, some of that is perhaps diplomatic and security interest that a lot of it is a higher purpose that you often pointed to your book. This is one we should also thank sidney mccain, i know shes taken a strong interest in this topic. It also goes to members of congress. Lindsey graham on the Appropriations Committee might not agree much with senator leahy about most topics but they were pretty well together on the foreign aid topic to your benefit when you are at a id. Another question here, this listener said, you spoke earlier about the Education System in the importance of teaching early u. S. Political history to students. How do you think the current lack of focus on the topic in many schools has affected the current generation of young new voters. I will add to that. Those who may be considering a career in Foreign Policy whether Foreign Service officer or private sector. Given my age im probably a little bit out of touch on this but from what i read, im always disturbed when i hear that younger people, i used to question a lot of the people who work with me or for me in different roles, when they didnt learn much history. The way history was taught they seems to find was boring. The heart of this book is stories. I try to tell stories in a way that catch peoples attention. I dont know how people can find stories boring if you tell them in the right way. Thats what history is about. I would like to think for one of the reasons actually i wrote this book is whether for people going into Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs a lot of this is and really talk anymore. I talked to some professors that might use the book for their course and i try to do in a way that we discussed that have people, events practical sense and in a way also since you mentioned policymaking a lot of what im trying to do in the book is say, how we try to solve problems. How can we look at history of insects to do better as opposed to timeless obstacles to be advanced of humankind. One other point on that is, history people often draw analogies, thats natural to do. But i tend to a found history to be more useful in thinking of questions to ask. Hearted people tried this before . What was the perspective of other countries on the history . If you go to china today you cant work effectively with china unless you have a sense of how china views its past, whether we feel its accurate or not or my story about germany and europe at the time of unification. I think history in a sense broadens the outlook including history of other countries. You grew up abroad in part so you have this feeling but i try to study history of other countries and it gives you questions to ask other people and particularly since many people feel americans dont know much about the country, you get added points for just knowing a little bit about their background. Ive got one last question here, really its a corollary, a variation of the one we just ask. Based on your experience, what advice would you provide to a College Student who is looking to go into Foreign Policy, whats your advice . Study history. [laughter] for the reasons we said. You know historical works that might be available . Then on top of it, i offer other thoughts that people might find a little unusual but i had a number of people over the years, a number of people who work with me, to run their own institutions, the head of the aused to work for me the head of the un environmental program, the african woman who runs the African Commission on africa. There is some history here and that is pick who you work for. This might sound odd because most people think bosses dig them, which they do, but my point is, you dont have to agree with the person on everything. But you learn an awful lot from the right person. I think about senator mccain. I ran into his former staffers all different sets of contexts and a related part is when you are working for someone, try to put your yourself in the shoes of that person and think of how the question that person has to face. You will find that, number one, you are more helpful because you see it from their perspective as opposed to what you are trying to do and theres a nice beneficiary, if you start to think like a decisionmaker, you are more likely to become one because you operate in those terms. When you can use history about his use case studies to learn about decisionmaking. Im going to wind down with a quote, its the final part of your book. Final paragraph you say, i expect americas leaders and citizens will continue to pursue these challenges pragmatically. Trying what works, as topol observed more than two centuries ago, the greatness of america lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation but rather enter ability to repair her faults. That seems like a pretty good way to wrap up all that weve been talking about. I cant thank you enough for joining us today. Great luck with this book. I think its marvelous. I had a chance to read it last week. It is character driven. Lots of wonderful stories, lots of great characters and somehow through it all we end up to being america and america being the leader that is on the world stage. To those who are listening i hope you enjoyed our first book discussion, there are many more to come. Keep an eye out on our social media platforms at Mccain Institute on instagram and twitter post. Our next event offers an insight series bob, thank you very much and so long to everyone. Thank you. And congratulations good luck with the Mccain Institute a thank you everyone. A look at the sum of the current bestselling nonfiction books according to Publishers Weekly. Topping the list in milani you and me, Stephanie Winson will call for calls her time at the first lady Senior Advisor and where she left the administration. Followed by activist glendon doyles memoir untamed and Pulitzer Prize winning author isabel workers since exploration of what she calls ahead and cast system in the United States. After that, fox news host sean hannity argues democratic president ial victory in 2020 would lead to socialism and economic strife in live free or die. Wrapping up our look at some of the bestselling nonfiction books according to Publishers Weekly is how to lead businessman and philanthropist david rubinsteins advice from leaders in the fields of finance, entertainment and government. Some of these authors appeared on tv and you can watch them online at booktv. Org. Sunday 7 00 p. M. Eastern alive discussion with Pulitzer Prize winning author bob woodward on his new book rage looks at present Trumps National and Foreign Policy decisions. We produce and distribute amazing Television Series and have about 200 million families who are our members
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.