Poor people who can afford a brownstone that cause one or 2 million they cant afford a condominium that cost 800,000. I think gentrification has real impact. Urban america is being revitalized at the same time. In the 60s we called the removal. Host the first book that Peniel Joseph road came out in 2006 waiting til the midnight hour, dark days, bright nights came out in 2014 and stokely and life brandnew hot off the presses and it is booktvs Book Club Selection for the month of march 2014. Booktv. Org up there at the top. Theres a tab that says bookclub. Click on the enemy can participate in our discussion throughout the month. Peniel joseph thanks for being on booktv. Guest thank you for having me. Booktv continues with Angelo Codevilla who says u. S. Leaders have about the Founding Fathers place pursuit of peace is the highest object of american statecraft and the school was lost during the 20th century must be regained for the left to thrive in the future. This is about an hour. [applause] thank you john and welcome to the heritage foundation. Peace has ever been mankinds desire and yet throughout history war has been his coming practice. Well consider the major conflicts of the 20th century in which america is about world war i, world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war and the iraqi war one and two, the afghan war and of course the cold war. In the wake of each working the question how can we make them and more importantly how can we keep peace with other nations . Or are we doomed as in George Orwells apocalyptic novel 1984 to a state of perpetual war . When we is through strength, a basic principle of the Reagan Administration and the principle reason why the cold war ended at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. Another path to peace is to rely on statecraft grounded in the principles of liberty and equality articulated in the declaration of independence. Now sometimes the americans early statesmen approved limited military intervention overseas. They took their lead from the roman adage if you want peace prepare for war. But how far have we strayed from these principles . Have we become the policeman of the world and are laudable desire to extend freedom that we adopted a policy of nationbuilding regardless of the wishes of the nation we seek to rebuild. In his newest book, to make and keep these Angelo Codevilla says are 20th century and 21st century leaders have confused the send war as well as americas interest and the worlds wishes. They have forgotten it ever knew the lessons of the past and affected the wisdom of the founders. Doctors codevilla offers no easy answers insisting that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the mayor occasions of war abroad. Our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many dimensions of peace. Professor emeritus of International Relations at boston university, former Research Fellow at the hoover institution, a senior staff member of the u. S. Senate select committee on intelligence, exforeign Service Officer in naval officer. The author of 14 books and numerous articles in leading publications here and abroad, possessor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. Ladies and gentlemen please join me in giving a warm heritage welcome to the author of to make and keep peace, dr. Angelo codevilla. [applause] thank you lee. I hope i can keep you awake in the next few extra minutes. I would move to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the Wounded Warrior project, a very worthy cause. The commercial for the station was accompanied by a song that asked us to say a prayer for peace. That got me a bit angry, quite a little bit angry. Suppose i said to myself if you had been paying plumbers to fix your houses pipes. The pipes still leaked and someone said to you say a prayer for your pipes. He would say god has nothing to do with my pipes. I didnt hire god to fix my pipes. I hired those plumbers in the pipes are still leaking. They didnt do the job. Theres something wrong with the plumbers. Whats wrong with the plumbers . We hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and war for the purpose of providing us with peace and instead they have given us for without and. A war in which they have no intention of ending. For which they seem happy enough to continue superintending. Why . Whats wrong with that . Why dont we have peace . That of course is the reason that they do not have the intention of creating peace. Why dont they . Well, because if you go to any of the u. S. Government academic venues you see that they have preached what one might call the cliff notes version of clausewitz mainly that according to them that war and peace are not distinguishable and International Affairs is a seamless continuum. Ordinary business and mutual destruction. That of course is not what the dictionary say. The dictionaries are quite clear about what war is and what peace is. Not so the u. S. Government and not so the statesmen, not so in fact much of the academic literature today. Hence, it is not surprising that our National Discourse on the subject of war and peace is a sterile confrontation between neoconservatives who see as president george bush articulated in his 2052nd inaugural, is a process by which we try to secure the worlds freedom, but leaving that we will not enjoy freedom ourselves meaning of course we will never be free. And a libertarian evolution that we can somehow avoid the rest of the world. The common sense is quite against that. Most recently a wall street journal New York Times poll showed that a Strong Majority of the American People believe that the u. S. Government should be less active in the world but at the same time same poll showed that a majority of the American People wanted the u. S. Government to be much more assertive against americas enemies in the world. The Mainstream Media of red that is the kind of contradiction in the american mind. Of course they did no such thing. In fact the opinions of the American People reflect the wisdom of the ages namely that one ought to seek peace, seek to stay out of trouble but that one ought to earn that peace by being terribly so against our enemies we have failed to do that and my book is an attempt to rekindle tension to the basic fact that the basic objective, the natural objective of statecraft is the provision of peace. We do not give statesmen, not to be dealing with foreign nations in order to deal with foreign nations. International relations is not an end in itself just as plowing fields is not an end in itself but rather an end to the crops that one wishes to produce. The purpose of International Relations is it that so we may lead here at home the life that we wish to lead. The purpose of securing peace abroad is to secure peace among ourselves at home and it just so happens that failure to secure peace, to earn peace among foreign nations really does tend to bring about the loss of peace of ourselves. One of historys more poignant teachings from the Peloponnesian War is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight one another with the purpose of somehow bring in that fight to an end. Nature tells us that the purpose is to come to some sort of rest. The National Purpose of inactivity is a product of that inactivity so the natural purpose of International Affairs and indeed of the most active part of International Affairs which of course is war is securing rest and peace. Now, my book begins with a clarification about the nature of peace and that there is no such thing as peace but simply there are only such such instances of peace from time to time as any nation is capable of earning for itself. All instances of peace are somebodys peace against somebody elses version of peace and they are maintained only insofar as those who established it are willing to maintain it. Again there is nothing permanent about peace just as there is naturally nothing permanent about any war. Now, the understanding that peace is a natural priority is not natural to mankind. Mankind is really no stranger to the animal kingdoms tendency to regard other members of that species as trouble or natural prey. Only a few civilizations have understood that only one civilization, the christians are laysha nation civilization, has understood that peace is preferable and the rest is preferable to constant movement. And that understanding comes from an understanding that mankind is one, that the differences between peoples is considerably smaller than the difference between any human being and any member of any other species. That understanding as both christian and classical greek intellectual roots. Embodying that understanding of statecraft of course was and continues to be a struggle both intellectual and moral. The clearest elaboration of the proposition that the natural end of statecraft is peace and of course most clearly in jesus reply to pilot about his kingdom. Jesus gods kingdom is not of this world. Saint augustine elaborated that christians he said should be indifferent to the things of the roman empire because individual souls are far more important than what happens to people. Hence the privacy in christian thought of peace which is the tradition most conducive. Mainly the contemplation of service. In the same way he thought to follow and understand mans naturally highest purpose mainly intellectual. That is also to be pursued most easily and most conveniently and most actually in a state of peace. Now that embodying that insight into practice, structures of practice of statecraft as they say has been the work of ages. There has always been a contrary tendency even within our own civilization beginning in the 15th century. The rise of europes kingdoms tended to equate goodness with the success of monarchs, monarchs who placed their own primacy ahead of peace. Hence, monarchs conceived of themselves as in a natural state of war against one another. Modern political thought beginning with machiavelli and hobbes imagines nothing but a natural state of conflict and did not see any goodness in the pursuit of anything other than primacy or as of course the objective, the natural objective of statecraft are to be the pursuit of peace. Why . Because again peace is what allows human beings to concentrate on that which makes us most peculiarly human. Now, this does not mean that the laws of nature and natures god prohibit selfdefense because of course the laws of nature and natures god certainly include the fact of human freedom and human freedom of course implies the fact that some humans will be rapacious toward others and of course makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. But what it does do is again to highlight what christian thought does and what classical thought does, to focus on the natural purpose of statecraft. The American Revolution was in fact a revolution against both the absolute power of governments and against the violent priorities of most governments. This really must be very clearly understood, that the American Revolutions intention of establishing limited government went handinhand with the American Revolutionaries prima primacy, the primacy of peace and the American Revolutionaries thought. Some arguments have been made by some neoconservatives that american statesman, the american system of the founding air a were concerned with peace because they were not Strong Enough to prevail in a war and had they stronger they would have in fact use that strength to force their understanding of the right way to live upon other nations. There is precisely zero evidence for that in the thought of early americans. The declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was to secure poor americans rights which are common to all men in all places including the right to selfgovernment, regardless of the nature of that government. The americas were also clear that they would have considered themselves, especially this is clear with john adams, they considered themselves peculiarly blessed in having that kind of moral habits which made possible that way of life. They did not expect that those habits which spread quickly if at all. In fact they noticed that even indigenous efforts to spread that american form of government floundered on the fact that the rest of the world was really not attuned to the kinds of moral habits that the American People had enjoyed and that these moral habits existed precariously among americans. The american focus on peace went along with a thoroughly conventional and let us a proper understanding that statecraft requires like Everything Else in life requires a clear and jealous concatenation of and send means, that one must make sure that one has the means to secure whatever claims one makes an one ought to make no claims other than the claims that one is able to support. This of course is no different from the notion that one ought to have at hand the money necessary to pay for purchases and to pursue him to have certain goods without the ability to pay for them is at the least quixotic. So both of these insights, then necessary concatenation and the priority of peace really were behind the paradigm of International Relations of the founding generation most clearly by John Quincy Adams in the Monroe Doctrine and the explanation therefore. The Monroe Doctrine contrary to contemporary misunderstandings thereof had nothing to do with asserting any kind of over the americans but rather it was a statement of priorities on the part of the americans. The statement of priorities that came not from John Quincy Adams but John Quincy Adams summed up on behalf of the founding generation of which he was the last member. That consisted of the realization that what happened on the other side of the oceans would concern the United States relatively little insofar as it concerns what simply concerned them. Of course, John Quincy Adams was perfectly aware of the argument made at the time that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only over europe but over england as well and have been able to dominate the oceans as well as the european continent that would impose a tremendous danger to america and had europe as a whole been able to control all of latin america, that would impose a tremendous danger to deny states that he believed that there was no danger of that happening. And in fact the Monroe Doctrine was premised on his competence that this could not happen and there were enough contending interests within europe to keep that from happening. Had it been otherwise the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine would have been different but it was not. Was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and therefore and in the americas and therefore threaten the United States. Abraham lincoln, who was, who i followed who had been a follower of John Quincy Adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and to secretary of state William Seward literally worshiped John Quincy Adams knew in his bones that as he stated in 1838 all of the powers of europe disposing of the worlds treasures our own accepted could not by force make 8track in the trial of a thousand years. The problem as lincoln sought it, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations but rather are growing enmity, the animus he that was growing among americas, the tendency of americans to regard each other as enemies. The issue of slavery of course being the greatest of the causes of the pretexts for that but realizing that as head George Washington, that there are many many causes or occasions for strife among our own people. Of course George Washington had pointed out, yet experienced that americans divisions over Foreign Affairs were a mage or cause of this loss, always potentially fatal loss of friendship among the American People. And so Abraham Lincolns policy, domestic and foreign, policy regarding peace and war always was aimed primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this friendship among the American People. Of course he faced that problem in the worst circumstances when in fact doing so required defeating the one part of the american polity which had taken arms against the other and yet, and yet we see from especially from his second inaugural that Abraham Lincoln aimed above all at the unity of the country as restoring that function. Unfortunately for america, the people who governed america after lincolns death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as americas First Venture in nationbuilding, theyre remaking of the defeated south, first of all considering the defeated sout