>> who is the of the a? who was asking? if you think about that as many members to are angry at the united states but i found very often our discussion of world opinion slides into the sense includes foreigners the world hates us into incoherence to quarter journalist after 9/11 that the whole world would turn against us inexplicably with the largest coordinated demonstration against the of looming war with iraq and

americans reacted aha by saying that they hate us for our freedom. but it is not a helpful way to understand behavior and his concept says there is a wall between ourselves and the complexity a decide to look into the history. >> host. >> y 19 -- ct 99? there were books printed of the industrial power and in european countries there was a debate over how to insurer the rising challenge of the new world power would not covert the market that is said dispute of material

concerns but they read it as the world is coming to haiti as because we're so successful and wealthy country and free and stand for good which sounds curious with that has been the predominant way americans having gauged when we encounter hostility or lack of cooperation. >>host: are any country's legitimately anti-american? >> no. not entire countries we have an ongoing dispute with the iran and the iranian government that has propaganda against united states but we're actually quite popular with the iranian state are the most pro-american population of the greater middle east. it is unusual to find and pollsters have not found populations that are filled with haters of america but what you do find is the rise and fall of approval of u.s.

policies which could be a interrupted of demonstrations that we throw into the catchall of anti-americanism as what the problem is the underlying hatred even though public opinion changes radically from month to month the year-to-year germans were asked about their opinions of u.s. presidency george to view bush fell to the low of coal% but obama was elected and approval was 92% was that a population of haters? no. they to make discriminating judgments on the basis of how they assess the new leader of the same country so western europeans were unhappy with the leader they saw as an inarticulate proponent of unilateral action and who had a swagger

in his step and not interested in their opinion and when the president left office in the new president seemed to be very good at articulating why it was in u.s. interest to be a multi a latterly, seek cooperation with other countries and embody a set of ideals about america as the united states is a land of opportunity all of a sudden it was very popular so there is not the deep and underlying consistent hatred of united states but it is rare. but foreigners can make distinguishing judgments of different aspects and behave accordingly. >>host: why should we care which germans think? when is the last time we were asked what we thought of angela merkle? >>guest: many in germany are interested in american opinion. this is true. >>host: but why? >>guest: because the united states has a lot of

power, resources, when we get a cold day get pneumonia , when we decide to use our military machine that can affect people around the world. it looms large for good reason and there is reason there's a lot of attention but the reason we should care is not whether we should treat the foreigners well but talk about american interests out can we achieve our goal? by acting unilaterally? or by trying to use multilateral institutions and coalitions of different countries as force multipliers to ensure we have helped to pursue our goals and policies are well thought through?

in 2000 due during the dispute to the iraq war, the president of france urged americans not to go to war in iraq and said don't go there. to me know the terrain and i fought in algeria. this wouldn't bet you'll be seen as the army of occupation and awaken arab nationalism is not in your interests. but we said the french are anti-american, they resent there star is falling so we put the french wine into the debtor and renamed french fries as freedom fries and a member of congress gave a speech saying we should dig up our boys from normandy because it is no longer a fit resting place in arab demonstrations around the world.

it reminds me of the early '60s. when charles de gaulle said don't go to vietnam. we know the terrain. missile be seem badly as an army of occupation and told kennedy you will sink step by step into a quagmire and predicted go broke last two years. so what did we do? relaunched french goods and poured wind down the drain. conversive we should take of the boys and normandie to bring them home because it was no wonder if it resting place. we said he was anti-american and there were demonstrations around the world against the vietnam as a wave of anti-americans.

but we ignored for an opinion, we said the problem is they are anti-american and we marched off into the two foreign policy debacles of the 20th-century. there is a problem there. rob nerve wracking mara 30 years later spoke of his regret we have not been able to listen that it was a failure of imagination to realize the french were the best informed westerners on in vietnam. we did not take them seriously because we assumed they had in for us. but i went to the records records, the french archives what his advisers were telling him in the french foreign ministry. they're renouncing those americans don't have culture but they said they analyzed the intelligence they rick getting, a 17,000 french citizens, the vietnamese

exiles they had good information they tried to share it with us and we could not help because of the confusing concept of anti-americanism. >>host: other times where there are anti-nation with the roman empire? it should be us to the term that we have british officials talk about the notion of anglophobia to explain why they encounter resistance and to rise against the presence but the problem is they don't like british civilization are the values we stand for. a anglophobia as a resistance why don't they

like our iron rule? they understand tolstoy. water redoing using an imperial term? it is something is by national chauvinist. french fascist talk about the anti-french conspiracy. by dree turn to the apparel of construction used by national chauvinist and imperialists? because it is terribly exclusive and in a domestic contests -- context if you criticize policy, it's not so much i may disagree but you are against your own country you are disloyal and your position is beyond the pale of discussion.

it is a narrowing and exclusive concept that doesn't give us access to the dissent and critiques that are essential to making a more perfect union that is where the founding generation has the right to dissent. what could be more american? yet for 200 years critics have been tarred with a fresh of disloyalty from the war of 1812, the rise of empire across the 20th century. it does not do justice. >>host: also another book you have written about nazis and good neighbors? >> when the roosevelt administration was worried the german immigrant population living in america

those spread across central and south america would rise up from berlin to take over their countries and open a third front. this was a concern widely shared in the security establishment in a joint army and navy planning board of the intelligence agencies that were concerned. in order to sort the possibility it was lost to history under which the fbi was dispatched. the problem is the people who did not speak german or spanish and did not know much about the country's so what did they do? they did what many of us would do, you get your expense account and offer money for information you go to the chief of police and

say where are the nazis? that system was riddled with corruption wear a button american dictators realized if you want the nazis this fellow is take him away. i can take his land and returned 4,000 people of german origin and put them in the campaign in texas. what i discovered in the archival records than camp commanders said who are you sending us? their spanish speakers, old men, i found 80 jews who fled germany for asylum then picked up because somebody heard him speaking german and put in a camp? some already knew what it was like to live behind barbed wire by being in a concentration camp. it was a precursor to guantanamo that we operate today. the use of bounty hunters

and local sources to ground the people they suspect that they call terrorists that are locked up in the system placed outside of judicial review and only as the years passed to realize we have the wrong people and nervous using resources. >>host: back to your current book, are receptive to the charge? do we care as a people? >> yes. americans do seem to have a long record of worrying about this. natalie define the term was used as early as 1767 founding generation father's shoes the correspondence but a term that was fought over by left and right and was won by the conservatives to quash dissent on social and foreign policies in the united states.

and it was an official concern of the u.s. government and especially the cold war when we try to have a scientific approach to measure opinion to analyze the source of resistance to the united states to come up with policies to combat it. but it is as lofty category of analysis that reduces or deducts from the sum total knowledge but full diversity is the same and the problem is they don't think like us or use reasoning. they are irrational. their hot blooded, prisoners of their emotion. not because we fought a war with mexico and a calf of the territory or in international disputes which we could argue but

anti-americanism is a way to look at the world as a mayor. we have a monologue we want it to tell us we're the fairest of them all. that makes an excellent fairy tale that is not very effective. >>host: have been talking with american university professor friedman rethink anti-americanism, the history of an exceptional concept in american foreign relations. here is the cover published by cambridge university press. you're watching the tv on c-span2.

>> we have to take back media. independent media will save us they are the most powerful institutions on earth. more powerful than any bomb or missile.

is an idea that explodes on to the scene. but it doesn't have been when it is contained by the box, the tv screen that we all days after so many hours a week. we need to be able to hear people speaking for themselves outside the box. we cannot afford the status quo any more from global warming to global warning.