>> as roosevelt discovered, roosevelt was one of the strong advocates of annexation of the philippines. and in 1898, 1899, it seemed like a really good idea. but what roosevelt did not sufficiently appreciate was that the american people were, and i might even say, are, essentially anti-imperialist at heart.

and americans never, not from 1899, not until 1846, when the philippines got their independence, never sufficiently garrisoned the philippines against potential attack by whom? well, japan was the expressions country in that part of the world. so roosevelt by 1905 was describing the philippines as his term was our heel of achilles. it is all that gives us concern in our relations with japan. because this was an american economy but it was indefensible. if the japanese made a concerted attack on the philippines which is why roosevelt had to deal very gently with the japanese. i'm not sure if there was another agreement besides this gentleman's agreement because i don't know the secret treaty you might be talking about. yes? [inaudible] >> i'm curious about the first day of this country,

manufacturing outsource robotics, you name it. and the american dream, what are the young people going to do if they can't go to work, what is your prognosis for the future? >> i will respond to the question, first i will say that i described this period of american industrialization, the emergence of them modern capital system. and i described it began with a war, the period i talk about in my book poses the war but war becomes a regular feature of american life through the 20th century. and i would say from this and you're shortly free to disagree, but i would say that america's economy, modern economy has never demonstrated an ability to thrive in the absence of high military spending. if you look at times when the united states was not spending a lot on the military, between world war i and world war ii, 10

years of that was the great depression which is not any kind of good indicator. since 1945 spending on the military has been consistently quite high. those american leaders who were responsible for the transition from world war ii to the peace that was supposed to follow where greatly concerned that they knew perfectly well that was the federal spending during wartime that pulled the country out of the depression. they ask themselves what happened when we pull the plug on the federal spending? are we going to go back into a depression? they were seriously concerned, and one of the measures they took to try to ensure that it did not happen was the embrace for the first time in a consistent and seriously by the american government i free trade. because they hearken back to the 1890s when it was a believe we've got to find foreign markets. the under-secretary of state for

economic affairs, he went before congress and he said we can't forget how we're going to run the american economy without access to foreign markets. and this was primarily behind america's decision to go in favor of free trade. now, i'm calling it the modern golden age the united states, the two decades from 1945-1965. i call this the golden age for two reasons. one is that, well, for people of my generation, i was born in 1953, baby-boom, folks running the country these days, these are the use of art childhood. there is this recurrent tendency of humans to look back to the golden age, and if you quiz people the golden age usually corresponds roughly with their childhood. when life was simpler. of course, life was simpler. you eight years old. [laughter] so there's part of the.

there's this thinking, if we just effectively country was in it is is individualll would be nostalgia. but part of it also is the historically anomalous position of the united states during this period from 1945-1965 because any fundamental way the united states was the only vector of world war ii. thath came out with a stronger economy than it when it. america's principal and social competitors were either greatly weakened like britain, or absolutely demolished like germany and japan. so it was easy for the united states to embrace free trade. yeah, level the playing field because you've already level that international capacity of all of our competitors. and so for 20 years until the german and japanese economy in particular topic on your feet, free trade worked to american benefit. in big companies like general

motors could agree to big deals with the united auto workers, knowing that there was no competition. if you're buying a car in united states in 1955 is going to be a detroit built car. and so there was this period, a goldenen somebody could graduate from high school in pittsburgh and go to work in a steel mill in pittsburgh, and with no more education than high school, have a solid blue-collar middle-class existence because it is this belief that ifnly somehow we could get back to that time, whether you're a supporter of organized labor, whether you're a supporter of one, would've you might be thinking of, it's not going to happen because it was this moment of historical anomaly. it wasn't by the virtue or the

particular productiveness of the american economy. it was because the rest of the world was flat on its back. and the rest of the world adventure is going to come up. so just to point out organized labor, there were two decades in american history where industrial unions were strong, and those are the two decades in this period. before the second world war the industrial unions had one hell of a time. they were engaged in strikes. they h much of a dent. but then there was this very bee was this unspoken bargain between the big unions and big corporations. because they could get good deals and cooperation could pass deals along to the consumers because consumers had no choice. once consumers could start buying nissans and toyotas, then there was a choice. the deal breaks down. so when americans complain about

globalization, well, it's partly globalization but it's partly the fact that the world of today is not the world of 1950. and it could be because of the world of 1950 have been built our guest destroyed by world war ii. that affect couldn't last election want to be world war iii and do it all over again. but fortunately no one is recommending that. >> i recently read a book called woodrow wilson's war, antiwar they were referring to was not world war i but world war ii. the thesis of the book had not woodrow wilson engineered congress to declare war in germany in 1917, the balance of power would have been, would have remained in europe, and after the treaty of versailles to would have been the rise of hitler and world war ii. i'd like to get your opinion on that. >> that's an interesting counterfactual. i find counterfactual history to be interesting andf i no more tx

months or year beyond we need a virtual what actually happened. because then you have no way of knowing what would've happened. so i haven't heard this argument in detail. but one supposes event that if germany what, wins world war i without american intervention, that there's no rise of hitler and the nazi party, maybe. but, you know, if hitler had been run over by an austrian streetcar things would've been different, too. i really don't know what to make of that. yes? >> i think the secret understanding was america looking the other way would you then invaded korea, 1904-19 -- i'm sorry? [inaudible] spit oh, my god. i don't know anything like that.

>> there was a book written about it and when this information was declassified, as you said, roosevelt and the other saw japan as westernized and that was -- should come you can invade korea, we will look the other way. >> well, to some extent that might well be true. in fact, roosevelt did consider japan at least until about 1904, to be a force for progress and good in east asia. but there was also a pragmatic calculation. if japan is going to invade korea, let what's the united states going to do about it? most americans had no idea where korea was, and the thought that americans should go into battle for korea, that would have boggled anybody's mind. if the war with spain had been presented as, presented ahead of

time as a war to conquer the philippines, it would have gotten absolutely nowhere. the only way americans could accept this projection of american power beyond american shores, the first time was a very minor exception, the early 19th century, the first time and americans had projected power much beyond american shores is 1898. and partly because we could afford to. and partly because it was only 90 most important it is some have said we ought to protect american power 9000 miles across the pacific, nearly everybody would've said you've got to have your head examined. even william mckinsey had to get a map to find out where the philippines were. do any of you remember when you heard of the invasion of grenada in 1983? and the first thing that everybody, all the newscasters had to figure out was that it's grenada, not cannot exactly where in the world it is. well, this is very much the reaction of america to the news

that commodore dewey had won the first battle of the war with spain because everybody was looking the other way towards cuba. the philippines are way over there. so yes the basic american attitude toward east asia from 1895, 1894 and five, the first sino japanese war when the japanese take on china and when, this is kind of a surprise to a lot of people because japan is with a. japan is a country we need to pay attention to. not that we're going to do a thing about exactly but at least nothing more than very briefly in 1998 and 1899, the u.s. state department issued the open-door notes. a statement of america's hope that the imperial power does not carve up china to the exclusion of the united states. and then roosevelt's decision to try to mediate an end to the russo-japanese war before the japanese got too strong. that was the basic idea there.

but that was as far as the eye states would go. as roseville discovered americans wouldn't pay to tears in their own economy in the philippines. which is why the united states eventually decided to give it up. >> thank you so much. you described more of you in the american economy. and during the lastno tw have we american economy. it seems to me there's a few things going on here which indicate a paradigm shift. one, americans don't have skin in the game. emotionally. and there's a lot of outsourcing of what would have in the past few of the american economy. could you speak to this paradigm shift how you see it playing out the? >> yes. whenever the federal government spends money on anything their costs and benefits. when the united states spent a whole lot of money on world war

ii, i have described as a stimulus to the american economy. but, of course, it was agait am. and essentially it was we will tax in essence the future generations to restore economic health today. i mean, i put it this way, it's to fight the war and when we were but the economic effect is as i described. when the united states and when the united states fights the war in afghanistan and iraq it does the same thing. it borrows money to fuel this context. there is an economic stimulus that comes from spending on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. now, it's not as direct and as great as was in the 1940s because much of it is spent in other countries and doesn't find its way back to the united states. but there is another element that is poppy more central, and that is when the united states borrows money today, instead of borrowing money for the future

american generations it borrows money from foreign countries. and if you're simply barring for future generations it's a bit, we owe ourselves. yeah, one generation owes another but it gives no foreign country any particular leverage. or to put it another way, by and large the interest of the creditors in the interest of the debtors align come if they are all american. but if the creditors are the bank of japan and the bank of china and other sovereign, then it's unclear that the interests the creditors are lineditst of. when the united states rand his huge deficits during 1942, 1941, 42 up to 45, it was some concern to the financially minded, but it came out a moment when the united states was the world's largest creditor. everybody of the united states

money. and when you are a creditor you have a freedom of action you don't have when you're a better. the united states now is far and away the largest debtor in world history, which seriously constrained america's freedom of action because if the chinese decided that they no longer want to hold american dollars, then interest rates are going to skyrocket, the dollar will get weaker and people have to figure out what in the world are we going to do. the chinese are already making noises in that direction. they're not going to dump their dollars overnight because they have so many. but you're talking about diversifying. every time they talk about diversifydiversifying american money markets get very nervous, as well they might. the biggest difference i think is in america's financial position with the rest of the world. and when you are the rest of the world money you've got to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks. if you just of the money to yourselves, you can go about

your own business largely ignore thinks. >> is another factor in the wars of the late 19th century that the united states had an inferiority complex that many americans thought they were still regarded by the europeans as a frontier country at the edge of civilization? >> very interesting question. were the wars of the late 19th century perhaps the manifestation of an inferiority complex? i'm going to answer yes. and as a way of illustrating this, i'm going to remind you, someone said in the introduction, i live in texas. i'm not a native texan. i got to texas 29 years ago. one of the things that i observed about texas -- well, texas is a lot like the rest of the united states, only more so. and in one respect i'm thinking of in particular, there is a lot of swagger in texas and a lot of

people who did like president george w. bush, just the way he carried himself. he swaggers like a texan. well, there is in texas, and i go ahead and use, the texas national character, there is a combination of these swagger, but also a closet inferiority complex. in that, you know, the rest of the country thinks that texans are bumpkins or cowboys, or something. and texans can't help but be influenced. so part of it is great pride in being texans, but there's also a sneaky suspicion that the rest of the country or world is not as impressed as the texans like to profess to be. and i would contend that this is something going on in the late 19th century. in fact, i would carry more until today in some regard. and that is there is of course the strong current of american exceptionalism your this is the

best country on earth. data because god made us so or because we may do so ourselves or something. but at the same time, there is and it certainly was until at least the first world war. the first world war was kind a breaking point in some of his because in the first world war european civilization basically self-destruct. after that it's kind of hard for europeans to take on any kind of superiority, superior attitude towards americans. but in the pager telling that i mentioned theodore roosevelt, and a lot of people have got with, woodrow wilson was a great admirer of the british are the main tree system here and couldn't make sense of the american presidential assistant despite the fact he became president and was more effective american presence. but i think you're right. if the europeans are out collecting colonies, it's almost as though americans can decide for themselves whether we should i we shouldn't. maybe that sounds a little too

harsh. sort of, maybe we don't want colonies today but one of college turn out to be handy in the future? if we don't act now there won't be any possibility for cars in the future. it's a safe bet. one last thing. this have to do with countries get the foreign policy they can afford. to some extent foreign policy and military policy is the equivalent of an insurance years ago -- well, you may have heard of a series of terrorist attacks on wall street during the years right after world war i. there were just one series of bombings after another. there was a huge scare and it was a thought that many of these terrorists had russian and anarchists, but it didn't occur to anybody that united states ought to invade russia. now, if 9/11 had a card 100 shares earlier, it would never occur to anybody to invade

afghanistan. certainly not to invade iraq. but the fact is that by the beginning of the 21st century the united states was so wealthy they could afford to take out one big insurance policy. if you could attack al qaeda in afghanistan then it makes it less likely al qaeda can attack us and the united states. nobody bothered to count the cost. there was, i came in who was exactly, somebody in the bush white house for the pentagon who said this war, if we go to iraq it's going to cost $100 billion. he was immediately fired. needless to say it's cost more than $100 billion. the point is nobody wanted to hear it. there was no consideration in congress about this. i'm going to be so bold tonight as to say we were close to the end of america's wars. they are are going to be any more american wars. okay, i'll back down at it.

but i'm fairly confident there'll be no more wars like the korean war or the vietnam war or the gulf war or the war in bosnia or the war in iraq or the war in afghanistan. because those are wars that were elective wars. they were not forced any directly upon the united states. we could argue a bit about afghanistan but you could have bombed the al qaeda cancer and come home. i think we've come to the end of those wars. it started with a war of 1898. we have come to the in because we have run out of money. in the 20 century americans could have guns and butter both it will just have a hard time having better. one less thing and then it will start. and that is that some people say that social security is not going to survive. social security will become bankrupt and so don't have a social security if your 25 years old and just are your career. those people are wrong and i will tell you why they are wrong. because social security will be

the last federal program steny. social security will be there after the pentagon has been vacated at lee's death to someone else. why do i know this? because every year, every six months, never can keep it straight, i get, you get a statement from the social security administration, and what does it say? it says you have an account balance. is your account balance your and your name is right next to that account balance. you start to think that yeah, there actually is some money in some place in washington with my name on. if somebody takes that away, i'm really going to feel hard put upon. i don't get a statement of account from the pentagon. added in a statement of account from the department of energy. so you can cut the pentagon and i'm not going to do so you took away something that's owed me. but if you start messing with my social security, then i'm really going to feel the pain. by the way, do you know why it's that we? it's not that there really is an

account with my name. is that franklin roosevelt in 1935 deliberately designed it that way. he said he knew, but let's make it look like an insurance policy and he said, and i quote, that's so no damn politician can ever take this away. and he was very bright and very effective. thank you very much. it's been wonderful. [applause] >> h. david reyes is the author of several books including the age of gold and the first american. which was a finalist for the two surprise in biography. is a history professor at the university of texas at for more information visit his website, hwbrands.com. >> hugh pope, where did you get the title "dining with al-qaeda" is because it was better than eating chinese with al qaeda.

which apparently some people felt might be cannibalistic. but he recounts an episode in the book one chapter where i am and we aren't and very soon after september 11 i was sitting down with a missionary from the al qaeda camps where most of the saudis who are the cannon fodder on the jets that struck the world center and here in washington had been. and then there was ticklish and started off with insight i'm going to tell you. i said, to assure you that's not necessary, i speak arabic if that helps. at about half an hour, i was bona fide a person who want to hear historic and those days you could. and i learned a lot about the way he thought and what he told me about those kids that were on the planes, obviously it was difficult for americans to believe they had normal life

back complicated. that's all my book is based what about is trying to humanize the middle east. not to justify terrorism but to explain what the context is. >> how was it you hooked up with tim? >> as usual these things are quite random. i had a friend who gave me a contact and absurd which are driving out to the out skirts of town and someone someone is interested in you. i was lucky, my colleague, i was with "the wall street journal," danny pearl did something that was a little more like an ambush, but so not much different from that. poor danny had his head cut off. i feel very lucky that i got away to tell the story. >> and what did you learn from your contact? >> i think i learned that the way, the reason that he wanted to kill me at the start of the interview was that he believed that i wanted to kill him. and that is the key thing. but remember in most conflicts,n

you received abroad that when you give it. i think that's the main lesson. when america's conducting mentor expedition all over the middle east and prodding with drones and such like you should beware that product is fully felt quite deeply by the people there. it's not just what is being felt in america that matters. >> are you still in contact with anyone associate with al qaeda? >> no. this book is part of the reason i gave up journalism. i was 25 years a journalist in the middle east. and after the iraq war in which i was the only correspondent of mine is never going to baghdad, and trying to explain to americans why the war was pointless, logically unsound, and would love in the face a little late, not being taken serious at all and find that

actually journalism, yes, it makes a difference. i'm so happy i was a journalist for a long time, but that only i couldn't i couldn't go on with the old system in the middle east which i would come out, i'm british. we done a lot of damage in the middle east that i work for "the wall street journal" which brilliantly supported this poignant war and i'm going up to people in the leasing talk to me, tell your story and it will make a difference. that was the old deal nfl did make a difference in the past and i start believing it. so i resigned and was lucky enough to years later i joined the international crisis group, a conflict resolution in gl, and i've been a lot more happy in my work now. >> hugh pope is the author of "dining with al-qaeda." thank you, sir.