To my mind, professor not has done more than anyone to tell us what Woodrow Wilson had to deal with, to tell us the history and the moment of Woodrow Wilson, to tell us what he confronted in the world he lived in. Professor tony smith has done more than anything to tell us why this matters. Frankly, every president since wilson, it has not been a question of whether or not they were will sony and whether or ian or not. Re wilson so much of his book tonight still continues to guide American Foreignpolicy. Some might say hot might say haunt american policy. What professor smith will help us understand in a more foregoing way helps drive america today. Im pleased to have the author of this book, why wilson matters , to explain to us. Then you can go buy your own copy. Professor smith, the floor is years. Applause [applause] professor smith i think everything is working. I think he introduced me in a way that introduced my family. My sister and i grew up in Richland Hills in the heart of the metroplex and my friend karen jones used to go with me to luanns for those of you to remember. We were the champions of the north texas push. This was before luanns closed in 1970. [inaudible] the Lakewood Ranch used to slip in because they would be that be drinking underage. Karen and i were horrified because we were. They were calling attention to a widespread problem in dallas. Im glad to see a few of you know these places. I have known, for a long time known tom for a long time. Someone ive also known for a long time. Meet jeff engel is a real treat. I saw that there was a reference to a book that he and tom had published. It sounds interesting. Im waiting for my copy. When life strikes the president , i noticed that neither of the bush president s is in it, nor is jimmy carter. It looks like its going to be a wonderful book. Who get up early and watch cbs news may see when charlie rose says, your world today in 90 seconds. Im going to have to give you wilsons world this evening and 2400 seconds, about 40 minutes, what we should keep ourselves to. This is an excellent time to be discussing Woodrow Wilson. April 6 was the centennial of the declaration of war against germany. The result of which was that an army by december of 1918 of 1. 8 million american soldiers were in europe. 126,000 died, 2004000 were wounded. This pales in comparison with 240,000 were wounded. The bottomline is the fact that the american contribution work decisive. It is possible the germans would have won if the United States had not intervened when and how it did. The result was to make Woodrow Wilson the presiding figure at that openednference in paris early in 1919. Finally, the person most responsible for the creation of the league of nations in april 1919. In for two years of centennials. To april 2019, passing by what was called the armistice, but was in fact the german surrender in november 1918. This war left huge marks on the 20th century. Most historians give it more weight than they give the second world war, however near and more horrific it may seem to us. The reason is that it unleashed several forces. The bolshevik revolution being the most obvious. Of fascism, the rise in italy and nazi germany. We can shift our gaze to the world under the domination of western imperialism, most notably china. Of thes the beginning rise of what was later called third world nationalist revolutionary movements. The impact of these forces is still felt today. In a way, communism and fascism are more or less dead ideologies. One thing less commonly brought up is wilsonianism. The reason it is important is that it is still with us today. It has been with us ever since fdr entered the white house in 1933. Particularly, since the german invasion of poland in 1939. Fdr was close to wilson and his secretary of state was, in fact, much closer. The transposition of wilsonian thinking into American Foreignpolicy came about very easily with the outbreak of world war 2. All of that said, not much is known or appreciated about Woodrow Wilson. I would say that he could win the most important president who was forgotten or dislike. He was certainly dislike in his own time by people who opposed the war, to whom he repaid the favor by punishing them. Hadliberal left, who supported his presidency and the war, were shocked his repression of dissidents to the war. People he labeled dissidents, people who he called the hyphens , germanamericans, irishamericans who were opposed to the war. People who were socialists or pacifists, whom he imprisoned or allowed vigilante groups to go out after. , who werenamericans treated very badly indeed. There is a threepart pbs series going on about world war ii, in in many ways, i dont think it is particularly good. But what is good is how it focuses on the crackdown of wilson on these people. Or his disregard as to african americans. The dislike of wilson continued far past the war itself. The United States did not enter the league of nations by a vote in the senate in march of 1920, confirmed later. Theas soundly rejected American Public in the president ial election of november that year, when a republican was returned to the white house. The first of three republicans with coolidge and hoover. It was only when fdr came back fdr wilson came when came into office that wilson began to be remembered. Even at that time, he was despised by the intellectual elite. Walter lippman hans martinson, george kennan, the list could go on and on. He was also disliked by, as the time went on, the left in the United States. They saw him as a person who actually was talking about peace and democracy as a front for American Economic interests abroad with a strong military. This was kind of a marxist widespread in american universities in the 1960s, particularly into the 70s. The right did not like him, either. He was for strong government. And because if you were a real list, he seemed to idealistic and too much of a moralist. The bottom line was that wilson was simply not appreciated. Most recently, he has been opposed by africanamericans. You who have followed black lives matter, you know there were protests wheretions at princeton wilson was a student and professor, and president until early in the 20th century. He was in politics. He did not like to call it Political Science. Matter asked lives the legitimate question, if wilsons most favorite statement most famous statement was that he wanted to make the world safe for democracy, why didnt he do so in america . That leads up to something that was reminded to me a minute ago. The book is titled why wilson matters. Believe it or not, Princeton University contacted me and said , could you change the title . We are going to be occupied. It is too positive. Could you change it to Something Like, does wilson matter . I have some explaining to do. To a book iions go published in 1994, again with princeton, called Americas Mission the United States and the worldwide struggle of democracy. Book introduced was the idea that the cold war had been won essentially, not thanks to our economic and military power alone, as much as this was true, but also because the contest between liberal internationalism and proletarian internationalism, and struggleal struggle, a of fate, if you will, had been won by liberal internationalists. It is a polite term for wilsonian. But since nobody likes wilson, no one wanted to use that term. Liberal internationalism is kind of a camouflage phrase for him. Whati pointed out was that won the cold war was liberal internationalism. It was not either containment policy nor military. It was a combination of things. I dont know how many of you pick this up a flyer distributed this evening. Is first point on this flyer what i call the virtuous diamond of liberal internationalism. It is a combination of democracy , multilateralism, economic openness, and American Leadership. Before together resulting in either a regional or an International Zone of peace. The great liberal promise that takes us back to the enlightenment. People did not want to recognize this was wilsonian. What did this have to do with Woodrow Wilson . He did not leave a good record that was coherent of his thinking he had series of strokes since he was a young man and finally was not able to finish his philosophy of politics. Which he wanted to do after he left the white house. He started it, Something Like 20 pages were written. At any rate, what tried to do was to reestablish what wilson might have said had wilson been able to put together the pieces of the puzzle as the puzzle lay before him in 19181919, the answer is to look at his analysis of germany. Germany, for him, was a malignant country. And it was malignant for a combination of reasons. It authoritarian. It was militaristic. It whereas imperialist, it was protectionist, and as a result of all thats things it thought in balance of power terms. When you put all this together, you have what he called the perfect flower of war. Now, the important thing to keep in mind here is that not all authoritarian governments are necessarily, for wilson, malignant. Germany, however, was capable of putting all of this together, although he was careful to separate the german people from what he called the German Imperial government. So that when the United States declared war on germany, the United States declared war, not the government of the United States. Not against the german people but against the German Imperial government. The government was at the origin of the problem. Now, if we look at the second citation on the handout that i have for you, you will see what is the most famous declaration that wilson ever made, when he asked the congress in early april of 1917 for a declaration of war, saying the world must be safe made safe for democracy. Its pause most presented upon at the tested foundations of political liberty. A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except Bay Partnership of democratic nations, no autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe the covenantsment must be a league of honor and partner ship of opinion. Only free people can hold their purpose and honors steady to a common end and perform the interests of mankind to narrow interests of their own. Here, then, is the origin of the ideas that unlay the league. That it would come together predominantly as a group of democratic nations, but there was a slight problem in this. Ill get to that problem later. Let me switch back to the 1940s, if i can jump ahead to the , 1940s. The 1924s is the wilsonian decade, where we have the britainwood system which integrated the leading capitalist economies into a form of regulated capitalism that creates the greatest burst of growth and prosperity among these countries in world history. Some people say its late 19th 19th century with the british but i dont think statistics , hold that up. Secondly, the gold standard, was the occupying of japan and germany, which converted these two highly authorize tarean into,horitarian countries guess what, democracies. And in the case of germany it mattered particularly because that allowed the Marshall Plan to look forward to the european union. It also set the framework for the north atlantic treaty organization, or nato, which was created in 49. You put all of these things together, some people would throw the u. N. In but i think thats less important. You get, again, the virtuous diamond. A place in and American Leadership is indispensable but the fact the United States is a democracy but its closest allies are democracies and theyre joined together in a collective military situation but they trade with each other and they do so through multinational networks of an extraordinary sort, never been seen in world history, by countries that are not acting under authoritarian orders to do this. This is really quite an accomplishment and completely fulfills what it was that the president was looking for, i think, in 1919. Now, the third quote here is an astonishing quote. It is a quote from gorbachev. 75 years after the United States declared war on germany, the cold war over, gorbachev came to the United States and he went to fulton, missouri, and there on the anniversary of Winston Churchills famous address in 1946, saying that a iron curtain was falling across europe, gorbachev, three years nearly three years after the fall of the berlin wall, declared that the end of the cold war was a victory for common sense, reason, democracy. The United Nations should creating stuck toward to impose sanctions and other means of couple pulse when rights of minority groups especially are being violated. And went on to underscore the universality of human rights, accept the ability of International Interference wherever human rights are violated and democracy must prove that it can exist as the antithesis of to tall totalitarianism. This means we must move from the national to the international arena. On todays agenda is not just a union of democratic states but also a democratically organized world community. Thats really quite an extraordinary statement. Well, see if i can find where i am in my own notes here. During the 1990s, after my become crane out, i took my ball off the eye of what was going on with liberal internationalism. I am at a very liberal university. And i got, i started writing the become on ethnic groups and foreign policy. Ethnicity and gender were all liberals are into that, and so in 1997 i was at the Wilson Center in washington in 1998 i was the council on foreign religiouses in new york, and i sort of missed what was going on in liberal International Relations theory during the 1990s. Finally my become came out with harvard in 2000, and i was giving book talks and right in the middle of it all, 9 11 happened. Following 9 11 came something really to me out of the blue, and that was the bush doctrine. I have the bush doctrine down here on im not going read all the bush doctrine. Dont worry. But we have got citations from the bush doctrine which are very meaningful. What they argue is something that at first in 2003 i wasnt quite clear what was going on. I knew that the language was wilsonian but there was something wrong about the accent. It was like going from i dont know texas to inning explained you understand what is being said but you dont quite understand theres something about it that is peculiar. Well, the bush doctrine said all the right things. If we go back to the virtuous diamond it was there democracy promotion, open markets, Cooperation Among allies, u. S. Leadership, world peace. And so in the fourth entry ive got here for your takeaway pages, i have the Opening Statement by george w. Bush, which is replete with these words, and then his final statement in the pursuit of our goals our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for. The United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demand human digit it in, rule of law, limits on absolute power of the state, free speech, freedom of work, respect for private, religious tolerance, and the National Security of the out must start from these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty. This is liberal internationalism. But its also not traditional liberal internationalism. What im going to argue is that it differs in fundmental ways from the way liberal internationalism was thought another by wilson and during the cold war period. What had happened i will try to go through this quickly because its very complicated argument is that the Political Science establishment in the United States in the im no longer in at the good graces i used to be, began to conceptualize three ideas of amazing force. The first was called Democratic Peace theory. If democracy spreads, peace will spread. Look at the european union. The second was democratic transition theory. That all countries can become democracies. The transition from authoritarianism to democracy isnt that difficult. Look what we did for germany and japan. We can do it anywhere. The third idea was that since the desirable peace is possible through democracy, theres the responsibility to protect, a new justice war doctrine that meant we could invade any country we wanted that was authoritarian, provided it inflicted huge human rights prices on its citizenry. Crises on its citizenry. Well, as i think tom knox where is tom knock as tom he,k would say, where is anyway . Hes around here somewhere. As he would say my reaction to , this was not only to be against the war but to suddenly say, what have i been doing writing all these wonderful things about liberal internationallallism when its under the flag of wilsonianism, democracy promotion and human rights, were engaged in this well, what did obama call it . Dumb war with the invasion of iraq. Not that the war against afghanistan to get rid of al qaeda was wrong, but tofully the flag of Operation Iraqi freedom, the iraq and afghanistan were going to be democracyized, what democratized