Numerous articles, thought arthur of nine previous books including the end of the american era from 2002, 2010, how they become friends and no ones worlds, the rising west in the coming global turned. The fellow at the hudson institute. The wall street journal and professor of Foreign Affairs in new york. A fellow at the council and he is also doing numerous books himself including American Foreign policy and how it changed the world from 2001. Next year i hope you will have the chance to host in a live form. The art of a covenant. The United States, israel and the fate and jewish people. The 10th book, isolationism, healing itself from the world is a subject of that discussion tonight. Please welcome me in joining them. Thank you for that introduction. It is really terrific to be here. I hate to think how long ive known him now. Quite a while. I can certainly remember back in the clinton administration, doing a pbs thing together. I think it was bosniaack then. That was like 30 years ago. You have written like 10 bucks. It fil me with envy. I dont know how you do it. And they a good. Is book, numbe 10 on isolationism. What led you to this subje . It is kind of a deep dive into history. What is the relevance of all of that history for whate are looking at today . Thank you for joining me toght. Thank youor organizing this event. Maybe i will ansr that question, walter, by discussg three revelations that occurred to me while i was working on the book. I thi that this will be music to your ears because i kno you feel the same way. Those of us that write about American Foreign policy, not knowing enoh about what came before pearl harbor. And i put myself into that category in the sense that until i wrote this boo i knew a lot about world war ii. I knew a lot about containme. I could tell you what happene afte9 11, but i could tell you very little about american policy in the early decades in the 19th century in the early part of the 20th century. It was eyeopening for me. In fact, my head exploded when i started to read this. I first reactionas what country am i reading about . So little resemblance to the america that i know and that i have grown up in. That america was very engaged in the world. Sendin military forces around the world. Always at war. That is not what we were like for st of our history. The second revelation that i will put out is tha one of the reasons we were isolationists and were reluctant t extend our reach around the world was american exceptionism. The founders propagated this notion. Foign this would come at home. Instead, we should perfect the american experiment by keeping the world at bay and attending our world garden. That was also a revelation to me because american exceptionalism has been the opposite. Mainly, a narrative that says america has to come out and run the world. That is new. That is a post world war ii phenomenon. This will come directlyo your question about relance for today. I started this book well before trumpas elected. When trump came into office and on his first day, right after his swearing in, he said from this day forward, it is America First. Well. This president is going back to the prepearl harbor nrative of America First and the isolationism, unilateralism, protection elizabeth that we see in trumpspproach to the world it is right out of american history. As you wrote in your own book, special providence which definitely shapes my own thinking abo this, he has tapping into a more populous tradition. They are a powerful during much of american history. Still powerfu today, as we are finding out during trumps presidency. You know, it is hard, isolationists is kind of a dirty word in American Foreign policy. One of the interesting things is that, there is kind of a moralization of foreignolicy idea as scared if somebody says, we, maybe we should make a succession, you are an appeaser. Need to worry about what we are outsourcing to china. A lot of the Foreign Policy arguments in the cold war era and beyond, really cam down to pinning nasty labels on the other person because it was sort of assumed that there was a siular truth, the rht way to do Foreign Policy and then everhing else was law. As you went back and compare that older tradition, with that cold war and postcold war, did you find that holding up . Did you find thathere was merit or was it allind of, you know, is it all bad that it is coming back . Well, you know, w had two dierent modes of strategy in this country. In the sen that from 1789, beginning life with this federation until 194 isolationism was basically the only game in town. Just to make clear what i am saying, it is about the extension of strategic commitment outside the motherland, beyond north america. Were engaged commercially, we were enged culturally from day one, we sent o military abroad on a shortterm basis to defend our commercial interest in our citizens. What we did not do is follow in the footsteps of great european powers and take over colonies, take over possessions, extend our reach and into the affairs of other countries. That is what the Founding Fathers said we should not do when George Washington said commcial relationship with everyone, political connections with no one. That basically lasted right up until 1941. It was the only game in town. After 41, running the world was the only game i town. If you said, hey, why are wen afghanistan, why are we in iraq, isolationists. Bad, dark. One of the things that i want to do in the book is talk aut the pros and cons of a more isolationist strategy. You can talk about the pros and cons of american internationali and hopefully find a middle ground between doin too little which is where we were in the 10s, doing too muchhich i think is where we have been amid our forever wars and yes, when i look back, that is the history of the United States prior to world war ii. I see a period during which the ad version two geopolitical attachment made great sense. The United States rose in the 19th century i part because it focused on the home front. On western expansion. Advancement in the United States, not battleships and colonies. Isolationism went way too far. It led the United States to run for cover when serious unavoidable threats were emerging in europe and asia. The goal is to look at the Long Duration and to askhen does strategic attachment make sense anwould it be good for us and when does it not make sense and what does it tell us today when it comes tomerica moving forward. We will move the conversation up into the presence a little bit more as we go on. I think that it is important to look at the historical case that charles is working with on some of these issues. You know, i thinkne, something that everyone can recite the name of, but very f people understand is the Monroe Doctrine. Its role as sortf an element of an american branc strategy. As you are going through this, w did you come to think of the Monroe Doctrine and of its place in american thought before i get to the Monroe Doctrine, let me tell a very quick story from 1793. I think that it will convey to the listeners tay, just how tenacious this was going rig back to the beginning. Right back to George Washington. In the revolutionary area of war, w were losing the brith were getting the best of us and the founders that were against alliance and against attaching ourselves to any foreign powers said, we need an alliance with the french otherwise weill lose. They helped us when the revolutionary war. Few years later in 1783, britain and france go to war again a the french ask George Washington how many troops, how many ships will you send across the atlantic. What does George Washington do . He issues the proclamation of neutraty. Heasically says despite the alliance, good night and good luck, you are on your own. That was the last alliance the United States had until after world war ii. Th is how tenacious, even for George Washington how this idea was. 1823, monroe issues a declaratioin which he says, no new eurean colonies in the western hemisphere. This is after many had returned to republins. They were afraid that the spanish may come back. In the conventional wisdom and the publ mind, this was a great declaration in the western hemisphere. It was nothing of the sort. It was mostly hot air. The United States did not lift its finger to defend the hegemony in the western hemispre. When an american delegation was invited to panama, a conference, a talk fast about the future of republican government in latin america. The president , who at that time was adams, Congress Went berserk. They said we have no business interfering in the affairs of latin america. In any way, we do not wanto sit down at a table witheople of aican descent, latin americans, catholics,hat is not us. That is not our business. A strong racist reaction. It was soate that one ofhe delegates died before they g the and the other arrived so late that the coness was over. So much for the Monroe Doctrine. Washington, whene broke the treaty with france, d he just say, hey, i am breing the treaty, did he have an excuse . How did he handle that . He would not tell a lie to his dad about theherry tree. How does he break in alliance with france . This was a hugely controversial issue, as you can imagine. As you know, there were dierent camps in the United States at this time. Those that dominated in the uthern part of theountry were very pro french. The others domined in the north were probritish. And, so, when washington said we are not coming, we will remain neutral, they went crazy. But, washingn was very smart. He was very strategic. He did not saying we are no lengthy alliance. He basically said, under the current circumstances, we dont think tt it is in the American National interest to involve ourselves in a war ainst britain and france. Despite the fact that he was careful and not unrolling it, the opposition still went crazy. Ey said you d not have the constitutionaluthority not to honor tha alliance because alliances are ratified by t senate and only the senate can undo them. In some respects, the farewell address of 1796 was the effort to thread the needle. He came back to the scene and he id, we really do not want you tangling alliances with anybody. You know what, we will honor those that we have, sort of, may , in a while, but lets not do this again. Even though it was basically defunct, it was not until 1801 that it was mutually pled down by the french and the americans in creating a new treaty. Lets jump forward a bit. You know, the dominance of this in american history, what made ito away . Why did we just go back to being isolationist after world war ii . What happened . Well, we start off after the civil war. Finishg westward expansion. It is important to put a caveat out therehat even thoh the United States saw itself as the chosen nation that was following the path of enlightenment, that was antiemre, antiexpansionist, this was pretty ruthless. Lot of people died, native americans pushed out of the way or put onto reservation. We grabbed a big chunk of land from mico. Weried unsuccessfully to take er canada on multiple locations. It is not like t United States was sweetness and light but it diadhere to the founding faers to go a little further in the Pacific Coast. To tend to our own garden, not to look for tuble abroad. Searching of monsters to destroy but, then you get to the end of the 19th century. The United States has turned into a worldclass economic power. In part because it was focused on domestic development. Closed in t words of the historian Frederick Jackson turner. They began to worry that the democracy, the prosperityould begin. Industrialization was kicking in. A new america emerged if this experent continues, we need a new frontier. Where is that new frontier now that we have made it to the Pacific Coast . It is overseas. That is the narrative that president mckinley, Teddy Roosevelt, the admiralsed to justify the spanisharican war. To basically say, we now need to take manifest destiny on the road because we have completed the missn here at home. The mainroblem, as you kw, walter, in making that argument and kicking the spanish out of cuba, we also took over cuba, took overuerto rico,nnexed hawaii, occupied the philippis, took over samoa. Suddenly, american said, wait a minute, you told us we are taking manifest destiny abroad to spread democracy and the american way and suddenly we are colonial occupiersf the philippines. That then sets the stage both for the corction to idealism, but als for the isolatiism of the interwar era. S how did wilsons sort of reaction against this earlier policy take place, in your view . Well, i thinkart of what happened here was there was a sharp backlash against real imperialism. It is not in our dna. It is not in the constitution. Very interesting debate about what we do abo these territories. At do we deal with puerto rico . What d we deal with samoa . They were not on the path to statehood. They were notccupied by whi people. This was a big part of the qualifications of integration. They really didtruggle to figure out the state of these territories. Were still dealing with that today. Should puerto rico become a state of the union you go through this movement. In fact there was an antiImperialist Movement that the demoatic candite for president , a successive candidate, wilson, the democrat comes in, he pic this up and he basally is an idealist isolationist hill pulls out of europn and asian commitnts. He maintains a strong stance from the western hemisphere. He sees the United States as a country that will spread democracy around the world. He basically dallows any realist ambition. He takes the country io world war in 1917 after the germans begato sink german vessels. He doesell on the basis of pure idealm. When he rose before congress to ask for a board declaration, he said we are here to save the world for democracy. We are going to war simply on the matter of principle and human righ. Suddenly, americans are dying in the trenches. What is wilson talking about. Then heries to sell the league of nations to the senate. Three votes, all of the down. Wilson finally says, well, i could not convince the senate so i will convince the american people. The electionf 1920 is our referendum on american internionalism. The republican candidate, it sically says, mak my day. I stand for the policie of George Washington. I am against entanglement. Running against jes cox. What happens . One ofhe most lopsided elections in american history. That really clears the way for the stubborn isolationism in the 20s and 30s. In some ways it always seems to me that the 1930s wer some of the most isolaonist decade in american history. Working with the bank of england skipping financial flows going in postwar europe. It was inadequate. Hyper optimistic that simply by keeping the economies of the world going we could enable. That was the other. Every now and then i do ask myself, forome of the viewers, the wonderful 1929 treaty 28. It outlawed war. Really just in the nick of time. Can you imagine what history would have been like if war had not en outlawed in the late 1920s. The murder, the mayhem tt would have taken place. They were not complete idiots. The isolationists of the 20s. The idea of self determination, breaking of the european empire. What people govern tmselves. On the other hand, if you divide europe into lots of different countries, it wil not be like the quarrel between austria, draggingn america. They had some thought. Naval forces at the time were the only ones that couldet to the United States. The u. S. Pushed very hard. They had this sense of w prevented the worst, we broken up the big empires, weot rid the absolute monarchies. We have nal disarmament and we will keep the economy going. In the 20s there was this internationalism white in a way no formal alliances. You know. In the 3, when the depression hits, basically, we just have to look inward right now. An attempt for an ternationalist approach to the depression. And, so, up until the fall of fran in 1940 when the people really began to worryn the administtion, we are just out of it for those 10 years. Does that sound right . I think that you are spot on. What i call in the book, borrowing a term from a historian. The u. S. Was internationalist because it is continue to be involved commercially. It continued to essentially conduct diplomac through wall street. Wall street was in europe and east asia trying basically t run through investment. The other thing that occurred in the 1920s is that tre was a new multilateralism. Interestingly, they were all packs of inaction. The United States was willing. Not to bill the navy and to outlaw war. You would have never gotten the senate to ratify something that committed the united state to do sething. That does not happen until the 40s. Until world war ii. The gat depression is really the turning point. That is when the u. S. Notnly did detaches itself geopolitically, i will be cused on the laser on a domestic front. Beginning to shepherd thrgh the congress one act after anothe more or less cuts the United States off from the outside world to avoid the prospect of bein drawn into the war. This is anotherevelation that i came upon. Roosevelt is remembered for the new deal. Also a great wartime leader. Until pel harbor, he was really part of the mainseam. Yes, he did change course and 3 and began to argue that the u. S. Needed to provide assistance to the british an