this was all nixon cared about was foreign-policy, and they were -- >> his line to his domestic policy people were don't get me in trouble and do what you want to do. >> because he wanted to be president. he had a sense that he could manage the world spirit he wanted to be the peacemaker. >> eddie didn't like campaigning. he wanted to be president. it's exactly the opposite of trump. as president he continued to campaign and his favorite subject is i won, i've won, i won. >> or comes the hook. [applause] >> let's start a war with australia. >> that was absolutely fantastic. but, unfortunately, it has to stop. it could go on and on i think in terms of the depth of things. we are going to break now for half an hour. the next session is about the

problem of strangers. to look after our own or are the obligations to people further away? noncitizens, peopling of the country. we will unpack that with an extraordinary diverse panel but before we do i should mention that there are books for sale just over there by john and hendrik hertzberg. they are prepared to sign if people buy them. they may or may not. i'm not sure. but before you point us up for half an hour, pleased if you'd like to have more of this conversation, would you please join with me in thanking our wonderful panel. thanks very much. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon, everybody. i would like to welcome you here to the new york public library for our forum, shades of red and blue here my name is simon longstaff. i'm the executive director of the ethics centre, and along with the carnegie council for the ethics and international affairs, and the bard college globalization and international affairs program, along with our other partners i would like to welcome you here to this important discussion on global security. in a moment i will introduce a panel and the chair but before i do so if i can just mentioned a couple of things about format. firstly if you were tweeting thing we've got the world's longest hashtag, shades of red and blue. you can exercise your thumbs if you happen to be using that. i should mention that a number of our panelists distinguished authors whose works are on sale

and available just at the table over there at the end of this session. he may even be able to prevail upon them to sign a few. seeing how they feel after the conversation. one last thing about context. i learned the other day, this is a bit of trivia but the first division of united states marine corps was refounded in all places in melbourne, and australia during the second world war. the battle hymn for the marine corps of this division which was commanded by general mattis, the current u.s. secretary for defense is the australian folk song waltzing matilda. and they wail -- they were on their shoulder patch to the state the southern cross which is one of the great emblems of australia. so there's an incredible connection between the united states and australia which actually goes well beyond that, australians have stood alongside the united states in every sick

of conflict over the last 100. i think we may be the only country that is done that. so the issue of global security is one which very much unites us in our approach and in our practice. .. jim will open the table to you and the audience. we believe these kind of conversations are not about

the panels talking at you or down at you but if you're in the audienceand you have a question or comment, you have a seat at the table 2. but it's not a permanent , it's not as a you plant yourself here and they i'm here for the next 20 minutes but i ask you to join the conversation on a temporary basis, knowing that you will be giving away when you do not do another panelist but another member of the audience who may want to add their comments. heavy side, make it brief, get involved in the conversation but take a chair if you could and in the last session we saw lots of people have a chance to do that. that's the moment that we got wonderful panels, professor walter russell mead , who you'll hear more in a moment. elmira bayrasli, i hope i pronounce that correctly >> very well jim ketterer from brevard and tom nichols. you probably know most of them already. join me in welcoming our panel. [applause]

>> thank you simon and thanks to all of you for being here and thanks to the organizers for putting this timely and important event together. so we're shifting to foreign policy, it strikes me that foreign policy not to be in most american presidential elections something that's front and center in the elections. in several of the elections we've seen before 2016, in the debate foreign policy issues would barely get a mention yet it's a selection that several key issues came to the four time and again. how we deal with china, trade deals, the question of russia that is still with us and more. and the foreign policy establishment in washington and beyond, the community of people who have devoted their careers to doing this, the

same community that made inroads in the obama administration called the blog. they are not always so connected to the electorate, not necessarily so attuned to elections and i think this is probably true across the political spectrum so given the surprising nature not only of the results of this election but the way in which it rolled out, what do you think are the kinds of things that the foreign policy community should take away from not only the election results, but the nature of the run up to the election, including in the primaries? tommy, we will start with you one thing that concerns me about the relationship between the blob or the foreign policy establishment and the public is that in fact we often hear the american public says the establishment isn't listening

to us. i'm concerned now that when it comes to foreign policy that the establishment listens to the public almost too often. and what i mean by that is that foreign policy now insofar as it does make appearances in our politics is almost entirely an extension of a permanent campaign on both sides. i think, i don't want to idealize this and say there was once a golden age when republicans and democrats shook hands on fighting the soviet union or any of those myths because that era of bipartisanship i think was remembered more fondly in our memory that it is in reality. on the other hand, it seems now the public and foreign policy experts alike seem incapable of having a discussion onamerica's role in the world without thinking about the impact , the position you are taking has on your preferred candidate. it's almost like we've become

a parliamentary system in some ways that we are simply not capable of taking a position on foreign affairs that is not some extension of a candidate or a campaign and i worry about this because i think foreign policy, reflecting my own bias here, i should say i don't represent the government or navy or anybody else. but i think foreign policy is not only immensely intricate business, it's a dangerous business. a lot of other areas of public policy are a lot more forgiving than foreign policy and i'm concerned that experts are being drawn into this partisan warfare and losing the ability to each other even when they differ. because of this notion that everything they say has to be related back to partisan advantage or some political organization or some person or campaign. now i think we're living in the worst of all possible worlds where foreign policy

is merely a football to be thrown about on places like twitter as though these are not real decisions that could kill millions of people and i find that really startling and i think the only good thing i can say about all this is that in a strange way, it's creating a new bipartisanship of forcing experts who normally would disagree with each other into the same trench where they at least agree on things like basic rules of evidence and how to conduct an argument but that's happening far away from the public debate which i think has escalated into almost, i don't want to say irretrievable but very deep difference between partisan sides so it's going experts into it so the take away is doctor of process but what about substantive issues, specific policy issues? anne-marie, are there things that came to the floor in this campaign that from both parties, either party perhaps

that resonated with the electorate in a way that you think is different? are there shifts in the population that we can start to read these tea leaves? >> what's most striking to me is there just isn't a line between foreign policy and domestic policy. on the two biggest issues i think for voters, economics and jobs, that was trade, that was nafta, that was china, globalization has taken away our jobs and there's a debate about that but they immediately look to specific countries and then the other which was security was not what should we be doing in the middle east but should we be, what is the responsibility of people among us which we heard about in the last panel so both of those places, people talking about it were we as foreign policy experts had views but that was not where i think the real heat of the debate

was and that is a function of world in which borders are much more permeable and we had both immigration and refugees participating in general, the inability to wall ourselves off from global trade. >> you mentioned trade, we had the interesting situation during the democratic primaries and during the republican primary where you saw that standard was proposing a very anti-trade deal that eventually hillary clinton came on board too. and that this has been one of donald trump's key scenes is his anti-trade so in that regard the people who are supporting sanders and the people supporting trump agree on this issue. and what does that say about what's going on with the electorate? >> why would that serious situation come to be. >> i think that this is i

think looking at the center supporters and donald trump supporters, i think we have to take a step back. i think this anti-globalization, this reactionary moment that we had in terms of foreign policy and how things have become so polarized is i think much more less about the policy and it's a lot more about what is america preaching in the world and who are we, what is our identity and i think we've gone through the 20th century where america was the unequivocal superpower. in economics and in military and here in the 21st century we've seen the rise of china and india, brazil, turkey, a lot of other countries and what we have seen is the prosperity in those countries , people moving into the middle class and their becoming entrepreneurs and they are moving progress

along and i think americans are stopping and saying what happened to our progress? we were the country that were creating the jobs, we were the innovators and is that a function of trade and if that is so maybe we should we should stop that so i think what we are projecting onto foreign policy, but i don't think we're taking a look and talking about where is america and what is our role within the global world order. >>. >>. >> what's interesting that in 1918 we fought in world war i and immediately there was a big debate over what to do afterwards and woodrow wilson lost and we took a much lower profile and the american troops came home. what's often forgotten is after world war ii we had the same debate and again we demobilized 90 percent of our forces. we had already pulled out and when stalin began to move in eastern europe we had a big debate and went back in. in 1990 the end of the cold

war, we didn't have this debate.we just simply, we decided that we would globalize our foreign policy. we would go from america as the center of the free world to america as the pillar of a truly global order. >> what's interesting is that in 1992, the voters take the least globalist of the two presidential candidates, george hw bush and bill clinton who ran on, didn't like nafta and was going to do less with foreign-policy. 2000 they voted for george w. bush over al gore, at least the electorate did. and then again, bush, it's hard to remember now but you wanted a humbler foreign-policy, no nation to learn, less engagement and in 2008 they go for barack obama over john mccain. and in 2016, they go for

trump over clinton so the voters have actually been very consistent in expressing of the two choices they are given, they picked the one that is the least engaged with this project. >> that was true at the beginning of world war ii as well. franklin roosevelt had to create it to be able to help the british because he could see we needed to help the british and it's so uncommon for people whose job it is to look around the world more often, and they found one of the coast and. >> true anne-marie but here's the thing, the difference is that the foreign-policy leaders in those days were able to persuade people. >> this time i think after 1990, i think the foreign-policy community, thought that actually he was going to be a lot easier. when harry truman is gearing

up for the cold war and franklin roosevelt is gearing up for world war ii they knew it would be hard. they knew people might get killed, would be drafted and they needed political support. in 1990 we thought hey, the trade will make everybody rich, democracy is spreading and inchoate we had a war and made the world pay for it. it's going to be easy. you can do this without really gaining a deep consent to the product. >> you're making two assumptions that i would disagree with, first in listing all those presidential contest, you are almost talking about the foreign-policy where the deciding issue when in fact most people don't care about foreign-policy. >> there's not a pattern. the second thing i disagree with, the second assumption is that the voters themselves are somehow consistent. these are the same voters with the same time will tell a candidate listen, he was out of all this trouble in the world, make sure america's number one. at the same time, make sure

america is the most powerful country in the world. the global system, america at the top of the heap and in the next breath say let's not engage, we don't want to be in places we don't know about. >> fortunately leads never make mistakes. >> i didn't say that, i'm saying the electorate for 40 or 50 years as send send highly contradictory. >> i would disagree there. that the way truman persuaded the americans to support the marshall plan and the cold war wasn't to say american should replace great britain as the gyroscope of world order and promote a global system. what he said is, the russians are coming. >> because they were. >> but here's the thing, here's the point, the in 1990 when the russians weren't coming, we doubled down on the great replacing great britain thing and the russians became somewhat abstract. again, the idea was it's

going to be easy and cheap and you're going to like it. they don't necessarily like it. >> i worked on capitol hill during the first gulf war and one of the things that struck me was that it wasn't that bush 41 had to stop a war, it was bush one had to sell restraint. it wasn't, the american people were saying to do this and get out. this was a full-blown why are we burning baghdad to the ground? >> the american people like, this is a very jacksonian response. the american people like wars that are quick and we win. they're not for like nationbuilding and counterinsurgency. every president who started one of these counterinsurgency wars , truman, >> what we're saying is that people have a foreign policy shall understanding. they like it when we went. >> shire people are revolting

you're right. the voters are stupid. >> i agree with you , i'm inclined to agree with you but i'm going to agree with you anyway but the place i do agree with you is i think tends since the beginning of the 1990s, we don't have a clear picture of what we stand for in the world. it was during the cold war, it wasn't just that we were against russia, russia was the soviet union and that was communism and we stood for democracy and human rights. and hypocritically, in many cases but inconsistently in others but we carter reviewed human rights and so did reagan. he had planned for democracy and human rights and since then, they really, it's not clear that we are the first for the best. it's not clear, donald trump says as kissinger was, we should just pursue our interests like everybody else did.

i think a lot of americans think no, we're more than that. we stand for something more than that. it's important to stand for something more than that but we haven't even the elites don't agree on that, much less saying that this is you america is in the world and making that case to the voters. >> i think the one thing we have to acknowledge in this day and age is that social media and the fact that we've gone as individuals. this also includes cnn and the 24 seven news cycle and we gone as individuals from being observers. of information to being participants in it. >> i don't think that whether it's the government for the establishment, they have not caught up to that reality and their still operating on the status quo of the 20th century. and i think you're getting this reaction of whether it's donald trump or bernie sanders or hillary clinton going out there and having this knee-jerk reaction, if you take a look at her and policy even under the obama administration area i'm a self-professed democrat but i think the obama

administration and the obama foreign-policy suffered from the fact that it did not know what to do with this change role where no longer does government have a monopoly on collective action. >> i would say go that there's a difference between the kind of participation. we're talking about participating for social media. that's one level of participation that's very different i think then when truman was trying to sell what we were going to have to do as we were ending world war ii and the beginning of the cold war. there had been a large number of americans who were directly involved in that war. in world war i as well and in vietnam. the number of people the united states has sent to this long span of combat we are now engaged in is a very small number. on multiple tours. and bringing in the national guard in a way that really i

think puts that burden on a small number of people so when the participation has shifted from making me sort of key decisions that any country should have to make about going to war collectively via social media, that might be problematic. >> even before truman, during one of them he said get a map so you follow along with me and literally masks sold out all around the country. today you get the average american to look at a map, it's under pain of death. >> we were talking earlier, there were a couple years ago the washington post did this participation issue, they asked americans what should we do about russian intervention in the ukraine? people have strong feelings about it.

directly in proportion to how little they knew about ukraine. the average respondent in this poll when asked to identify where the ukraine was was off by an average response of 1800 miles. ukraine is the single largest country's borders are entirely in europe and the average american could not place it on the right continent. >> how like their thinking have been sharpened if there was a sense that they or someone in their family would have to go stir in american as the additions in ukraine if that's what they were promoting? >> years maybe where in my view the kind of core reason that there's this gap is that after world war ii we didn't just build this international order and global system but there was also a domestic order that basically if you didn't screw up, you had a good job for life. that you graduate from high school, chances work you would get into a factory or something. over time, your wages would gradually rise, not for everybody. there was a lot of racial discrimination and women didn't get an equal shot. nevertheless, in general there was this sense that things were going to get

better and that you had security and stability in your life. what has happened since 1990 particularly but in the beginning even before his there's a revolution in people's ordinary lives so there's a feeling of insecurity at home. so here you are all trying to fix an honest electoral process but here at home, it's a mess. and that, they wonder why. why do you care so much about over there? also, i will say while some of our global efforts work pretty well a number of them actually dumped so the revolution in egypt didn't bring human rights. all those phone calls obama made to erdogan didn't create

the islamism in turkey that was going to save the middle east so there's a sense that you don't know what you're doing over there and you certainly don't know what you're doing over here . why am i going to trust you? >> i want to ask a question to everybody because this is part of, i come from one of those towns. that 40 years ago was driving and is now the populating and empty factories and all of the things we talk about every day. you bring up a great point about in our foreign-policy there's no longer a division between foreign and domestic. i find when you talk to the ordinary voter or citizen, they are unaware of their own , and walter, i can already feel you giving me the look about blaming ordinary voters but when you say to people ... >> we can we were not no man pursue. >> the standard of living around the folks to say you don't know what you're doing over there or here, when you try to make the point about

about the amount of chinese electronics that you are buying, the things that you are making that are part of that globalized system of trade and peaceful cooperation that you are surrounding yourself with, i always want to go out. >> but my kid is a heroin addict. >> and that's what i was going to say, your blind blaming the guy who smoked for 40 years because he got lung cancer. >> it's more that in all kindsof communities around the country, there's been a collapse of social capital . and again, if you go to an ivy league college and you talk to the kids there or even a place like bark, what are you going to do when you graduate? you'll hear a lot mortgage interested in fixing the world than in, i'm really going to go move to west virginia because i feel as an american it's my duty to help my fellow americans. i think the elites have kind of stopped teaching that kind of patriotism. for america, which is great but there's a sense of, you

gain people's trust by doing things they understand are good and then there's a likelihood that when you ask them to do something they are not sure about, they will trust you and believe you. >> but what do foreign-policy experts do in this situation where this anger, which i think is fundamentally misdirected at this point because when people say you don't know what you're doing over there, my argument is somebody asked the other day, 50 years of this kind of policy, what have we gotten? >> i would say a global system of peace and prosperity that better than world war ii or three. >> i agree but my response to the donald trump getting elected was for trip to europe to essentially in the ideas, i just bought why am i spending my time talking to people like me in european

watering holes rather than actually reading about and traveling in this country? and one of the ways you can look at this election was it was a statement that said in multiple countries, the people who had been advantaged by globalization all wrote the same way, all talk the same way. we give her a little but the bigger divide are those folks who are still in those towns left behind. in france, germany, britain. in pennsylvania, absolutely. so i think walter's right that even as a foreign-policy person, i am far more connected to my counterparts in britain and japan or even in beijing that i am to fulton west virginia. >> i couldn't agree more and i think we need to listen. and again, i think trust is something that people develop. i think the average american, franklin roosevelt was not very much like the average american. he was about as privileged as

it was possible to be and he was a cripple to which he lied about. and yet people felt that he cared about them. even then, he found it very difficult to nudge the country into world war ii but he built up trust on things they understood and then they were willing to trust him on things that were a little new and more challenging and i think that elites need to think about, the difference between being a member of an elite and being a leader and i don't think on our side of this, we've done enough about that. >> i don't disagree with you walter but i also think we are not thinking about yes, there's a perception about the voter and whether it's in pittsburgh or west virginia and how they feel left behind but at the same time, they

feel left behind because they see so many people whether it's in india or brazil and mexico. >> i think they're looking at india, brazil and mexico. >> but people in china, and brazil and india, they are gaining a sense of confidence. >> i don't think that many people in western pennsylvania necessarily know that the middle class in turkey feels more confident than it used to. >> but they are getting a sense that the world has changed . >> the middle class is doing better than they are. >> but then when you talk to these people they always say why are our jobs going to mexico? why are our jobs going to mexico. the reality is when you're talking aboutfdr , you're also talking about an america where we have not only military power but we have this soft power where people love the idea of america. >> the reason they think jobs is going overseas is because they think the wages are lower. they don't actually think the factories going to china means that china is richer than us because if china were richer than us, the jobs

would come back here. >> but they see people doing better they're not actually. they don't actually go to china a lot or read a lot of chinese social media. >> but they are told this. they are fed a lot of these. >> i think what they hear and this would be as true of the sanders wing as the trunk when is that selfish american corporations are moving jobs to low-wage havens overseas. they're not hearing selfish american corporations are moving jobs to high wage corporate companies. i think what they are hearing that they don't believe is in the 1990s everybody said okay, we're going to let china build up and it will be doing our low wages, slave labor, whatever it is. but in the end, it's going to make china democratic as it

industrialize and becomes democratic so china will be peaceful and what people see is not that the chinese middle class is happy. what they see is china has gotten really powerful by taking low-wage american jobs and built of the economy and is now becoming a military threat. so the promise that free trade was worth the sacrifice to american jobs in order to create a more stable world order is not looking quite so solid. >> this is part of what i object to in this debate is the notion that they were sold free trade in a more peaceful world. i think to me, the very first job i ever had in politics is working on a plant closing which was a painful thing and it seems to me what all this boiled down to was where going to maintain the trade because it's bowing up a fairly quickly rising standard of living with a lot of cheap. that you can afford out that you could never afford before. why does the american government support free trade? not because it's going to make china peaceful but it's because you have an air-conditioner you couldn't

afford before . >> had an easier time getting an air-conditioner in 1975 and they do now. not a smartphone, i'll admit. >> itseems when you do this . >> and your disposable income is less . >> i didn't have to cancel a lot of trip to europe. i spent a lot of time talking with folks who work, in fact trump voters and angry both but i find when i listen, the answers i get are a demand per square circle to do the impossible, that they are almost a set of demands that i cannot imagine any policymaker succeeding with and this is why successive administrations of both right and left of democrats and republicans simply cannot satisfy what it is that the american people are demanding in foreign-policy. let me limit this to foreign-policy. there are contradictory within itself. >> and americans are getting, now they are getting very specific messages that are

just absolutely wrong on the facts and perhaps from both sides. in addressing these issues, these issues have policy consequences so when we see an executive order that says the united states government is now going to aggressively address the trade deficit, this is anybody who like i suffered through international economics 101 understands very quickly that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing for an economy. it takes leadership to talk about things that while they mightintuitively sound right are not right . and to follow a policy direction that is based on an absolute perpetuated falsehood, eventually leads us to a very difficult place. it doesn't end up addressing the kind of issues that everybody here is saying we need to listen better and understand those issues. those are the very people who offer first with bad economic policy. so where does this go? >> i think both the left and

right are saying we need to rethink for people in both parties for 40 years have been orthodoxy which is you support free tradebecause free-trade expands the pie . you know, we all learned basic theory of comparative advantage, it expands the pie then you figure out out to redistribute the pie and you retrain or whatever and i think what you're seeing on both sides and i've been thinking about this do is wait a minute, it it expands the pie but it expands the pie so unfairly that we say we're going to retrain but we don't, retraining doesn't work. we fight it again, but maybe we either have to have much more redistribution policies which i'm not sure our politically viable or maybe we should in fact have a more

, have at least the same amount of protection as many of the nations that we are trading with due at germany has more protection than we do, china certainly does and it seems to me we should listen and challenge our own orthodoxies there. i've never heard that you wouldn't support free trade but it seems to me it's worth going back and asking why, who is this benefiting? why are we taking this position from right and left? >> without looking up over our shoulders as experts, as people who work in foreign-policy to say which candidate or party am i going alongside of? that's driving a huge. >> that's one way you lose trust and your perceived is always trying to steer. >> but i think there is something where our elite education does stress theory over history.

political science over the history of power, economic theory over economic history because in fact if you look at history, while protectionism is in theory bad, it's worked pretty well for a lot of countries like the us in the 19th century and arguably our having protective tariffs against britain actually allowed us to develop a domestic industrial sector and one day compete with britain and a lot of other countries protect, it's not because they didn't take economics 101. it's because they took history 101 so i think we have, i think this is an area where really is bad, that they are to use to theory. they have models of ir and they try to think okay, are we going to become a liberal internationalist and if so what do we do in bosnia? as opposed to what's the last thousand years of history in the balkans. >> wears bosnia? >> i agree with you that the elites have lost touch so i agree with that but i think, i think we're losing perspective here because

we're looking at this again from a purely american point of view and where not acknowledging the world has changed. you're talking about protectionism, protectionism didn't work too well for the soviets . >> it didn't work well for the germans and japanese. >> it did not work well for lack america and it did not work well for a lot of others. >> buddy why it works in some places and doesn't in others. >> but you can't say protectionism does work . >>it does him times work . >> you said sometimes it works and that's why we have to have a debate. >> i don't know what we're arguing about right now. >> we have to stop reacting to words as if they are magical incantations. that is a incantation protectionism, free traders freak out and all the nativists for protections freak out. we are more empirical and less abstract. >> also to say under what conditions?

>> if you left the side port foreign-policy and said if you could have the same conversation about unemployment do benefits make people lazy? some people yes, some people know. sometimes it's a necessary bridge. instead we have these media kind of metric voltage moments where those words,. and that unfortunately has been reinforced by our partisan debate and i think that the foreign-policy community needs to transcend that and get back not to a consensus perhaps but at least two agreeing to rules of the road about changing that consensus. >> to be able to sort through these kinds of issues in what situation would protectionism or some level of protectionism or some targeted industries or whatever, when with those work? other issues, specific issues, how should we deal with the north korean threat? yes, there needs to be more listening to the electorate but that's not going to answer those questions. >> not on north korea.

>> those kinds of questions i think do require a combination of expertise but also leadership and the willingness to be able to explain difficult things. >> and to teach. fdr, your point about fdr is a good point because fdr was not just a leader, he had relationships with the american teacher. >> so was teddy roosevelt, another member of the elite. george washington was the richest man in the colonies so it's not that elites can't be leaders but it's just that a lot of elites don't know how to lead and people sense that. so i think you can be honest to the facts and honest to history and also honest to people but you also i think have to put principal ahead of ambition. you have to say even if it means i never serve as the under deputy assistant of x, i'm still going to tell people what i think and

they're going to know that what i say is what i believe. >> let's see if anyone would like to join us at the table if you dare, please come and join . >> it's really very nice. >> and as simon said, come and join it for a little while and then be ready to relinquish your seat please. can you, know. >> you need to come up. >> do i have to?>> yes, please. >> this is how the panel will listen to the people. >> we are leading back here, we're leaders. ... >> all right, hi. >> welcome. >> it's great that you actually mentioned the conversation that becomes

what to a lot of outsiders, strangers, just like a green card. i think of american policy which is that fdr, a great read. but it was played out right here a moment ago. in some respects. >> and the point is, discussing microcosms as domestic issues which are multifarious is not addressing the rest of the world is a atypical of how the rest of the world views american foreign-policy and we just saw it happen. my question therefore is to bring it to global security and as i'm sure you're all aware, david: is the origin of the strategy of desegregation and what do you see as the next logical step for dismembering radical terrorism and helping share piece as it stems in the

middle east. >> would like to start with that. it should be easy to solve. >> i guess i would start with i hear a lot, i go to some of the same forums anne-marie goes to and i hear a lot of sort of debate about will be democracy that ends terrorism in the middle east, empowerment of women, economic development and i guess my own sense is none of those are going to happen in a policy relevant time period maybe we will get lucky and they will. in fact, we actually have to deal with the reality in which the arc of history isn't going to kind of come in, then when we needed to. and so you're facing a very complex movement of a kind of , it's ideological, it's religious, cultural resistance, it's state desegregation. it's changes in domestic structures. and but i think we do spend too much time inventing

imaginary paradises in which this problem will just go away. i would say, i don't necessarily have the answer at this point in the first step is we have to clear a lot of ground. >> i agree with that. i think that i feel like i agree with you.>> if people listen to me long enough. >> i think we are approaching , we tried to talk about these issues. number one, we have to take a look at, we are reacting to terrorism through a military lens and national security lens but we're not understanding why terrorism has risen in the first place and that have to do with, they talked about this in the last panel, it has to do with people feeling marginalized, total ability has stopped so going to anne-marie's point about domestic politics feeding into foreign-policy, this applies to whether you are in process brussels or san bernardino. we have to acknowledge that.

and approach terrorism as realpolitik as well as war and the nature of war has changed today. when you're talking about countries, russia is not, we're not afraid of russia coming in with their nuclear missiles, their icbms. now their hacking into our elections. and how are we reacting to that? >> on the one hand you can say well, no one's dying but something is profoundly being disturbed in this country and in the world order. >> i actually would not approach this in terms of how we, the united states or the west or whatever we want to use is going to end isis or radical islamic terrorism or whatever thephrase is. we are not. it is to me , the equivalent

of the fight between the protestants and catholics for a very long time. in europe, where we are not the best we can do is to protect ourselves and become more resilient, obviously where there are very specific things where we can take action we should. but to me, it's crazy to think this is an enemy we're going to defeat the way we defeated hitler in the second world war. i look at the british in this most recent attack and indeed, the city after 9/11 and where the view is okay, we stopped a lot of the attacks every now and again one gets through. when it does, go to work the next day. go in and tell them you didn't win and ultimately you let the larger forces in religion, within various societies resolve it. i don't think we'regoing to defeated.

>> i want to give you a warning . i want to make sure we have enough time. i agree with anne-marie and i think this notion of somehow there's going to, this is one of the worst myths during this election, that we were going to elect the alleged equivalent of the reichstag and ray the american flag and declare victory. my biggest concern is the way we triumphed is to endure, by remaining true to who we are as ourselves, the largest, second-biggest danger of the cold war was a nuclear holocaust, the second-biggest was that the united states and its allies would become too much like the soviet union and fighting, creating a national security state and creating a intelligence apparatus area that i think with that we avoided that and

we need to spend less time thinking about how to defeat them in some strategic sense, operationally we have to stop them but we always have to keep looking at ourselves and saying are we being true to our own values? because that is victory in an enduring way. >> i would also, americans, tom said also that having a sense of really what the threats are, not just the threats posed by isis or al qaeda, though they are real and persistent, but i disagree with you that we mainly have to be worried about the russians and acting, what they're doing in the cyber world. yes. that's a concern. but the nuclear issue has not gone away. you could make an argument that we live in a far more dangerous time in terms of nuclear security than we ever have and that's one issue that did not come up in the election. it doesn't really make for good politics and the hot seat to talk about the potential for nuclear annihilation but i think whether it's states like russia or the north koreans or other nonstate actors who might use nuclear weapons, it

really is chilling and should be chilling to people and i think that's another area where we need leadership to both be informed and be able to speak about it in an informed way. and to honestly address these issues to the american people and i think that's not hanging off. >> . >> go ahead. >> it's very interesting. coming back to domestic issues, all the time listening i've been thinking about the white elephant. you know, that's under the rug. and that is the enormous growth of wealth in the last 20 years in this country. and i my question is what is the relationship and it's interesting that you don't mention that, it's kind of like on the side, you talk about jobs, protectionism, globalization. >> what is the relationship between economic policy and the growth, the enormous, unbelievable growth of wealth . it's almost like magical.

>> it's some magic. >> i don't mean in a medical way. you would never believe that 10 years ago, you would never realize the disparity between our poverty. which is also unbelievable and the inordinate growth of wealth. i was reading in the times that yvonne trump had something like $8 million, she and her husband. one person. so that's my question. >> who would like to start with that? >> the question, when the elites that we have been talking about, they have i think it's connected with what they want and how to achieve to augment that wealth is directly tied to, we can create cheaper things in taiwan or china or south korea and were going to get more profit in. the supply chain has gone global and they have been

pushing for that and they had been thinking about the consequences of what is happening to somebody in tech-support or in west virginia. and just about the social welfare and when you take a look at silicon valley and you hear constantly all the time about the wealth gap within silicon valley, and how you have people who are within the tech community sending their kids to private elite schools, but then you have the people knowing and taking demands and people taking care of their homes and their in these public schools that are, they're losing money and they are significantly there and this is something where you know, we're come down to?it comes down to the elites but also comes down to not only our elected officials in washington but local leaders on the ground. and this is not a discussion about domestic politics but

you can get into a discussion about campaign-finance reform and how much elections are dependent on that. >> i want to say one thing, blaming rich people for wanting to be richer . >> it's the elephant on my rug and i wish it would grow a little faster. >> i think what i said, there are winners from globalization who win over and over again. just in this university professor, i remember the day i realized in the late 1990s that prior to that that i have got maybe 100 students in one place, suddenly could be taught online all over the world and i could read the benefits of that many times over so there is a class of people who have gained extraordinarily and yes. >> but it got a lot bigger versus people who are fundamentally losers from globalization and part of what i was saying about the divide in this country and in europe and in other parts of the world is that fight

between the winners in globalization and the losers. and each country have to then come back and say wait a minute, weekend continue as a policy. with this amount of division. there has to be some redistribution or different policies so everybody gains. >> i want to replace the word globalization for a minute and talk about information economy. >> fairpoint. >> this is as big as the industrial revolution. and some of his unavoidable in a world where information is access to information, the ability to manipulate and use information is the new skill. some of the problem we are seeing with these disparities are not the intended consequences but they are unavoidable consequences. >> anne-marie, if we're going to address that, we will retrain people. >> or we will redistribute internally which is a question for domestic politics and we can have different arguments about distribution .

>> the industrial revolution starts in the 1820s in this country and it's not really until after the second world war that we learn how to run an industrial society. my guess is the information revolution is going to be the same. we don't understand what is happening in the way that we did when we had a mature industrial economy. >> don't, the economy doesn't behave the way the central bank thinks it will. so we don't know, we're redistributing, so we are. of fumbling again, this gets to the only thing that in fact, a generation ago, you could apply known techniques to existing problems and more or less be successful. >> now it's a little bit hairier. >> let's let our listening to her. >> isn't this a little complex?

that only elites can run foreign-policy? it's really a simple thing. it's the existence of human relationsif you are generous and fair sump with somebody, they will treat you fair. there are exceptions, there are crazy calls . american capitalism might be a crazy call but if you drop a bomb on somebody, they're going to hit you. itdoesn't have to be islamic terrorism , it's bob terrorism so most of the electorate has been taught everything about the military is good. military-industrial complex and their view is that well, any war is and alwaysfootball game. for the home team. it wasn't always like this. in the 1920s, they investigated various depths . they outlined more globally. >> thank goodness that happened. but i'm saying, if we hadn't had that pact we might have had another war. >> i'm going to take issue and say the notion that foreign-policy isn't that

complicated and we don't need experts to do it, first of all clearly in this current political environment were going to engage in real-time testing of that hypothesis. and i don't think, i personally don't think it's going to end very well. in part because i think the amount of information taking in about the world whether it's 2017 or 1917, i think is like most specialized areas of knowledge, beyond the comprehension of any one citizen which is why we have a republic, not a democracy. it's why we mediate these decisions through a republic of elected representatives. and i also think ordinary citizens are always surprised in foreign affairs by the problem of unintended consequences, that when you move one part of the group excuse and fix other parts of it, it moves. that's a difficult thing to do and did difficult thing

coming back into this as a foreign-policy specialist is saying i think we offer this at some point, it's a great metaphor that ididn't invent and i can't think you did that american street foreign-policy like the plumbing. it's invisible, they don't care about it unless it breaks . >> i think that's right but i want to agree that one two points, one very much your point and i heardyou make it earlier that when you kill people's families , they remember. when we, the bombings in germany and japan in world war ii, they bombed us, we bomb them. now is much more one-way. there are places we are dropping these bonds, they bombed us in terrorism but they don't have the ability to really strike back. these are often from drones now so it's not even, it's not a pilot up there. there you are in a wedding or whatever else and boom, your child, your cousin. those humanitarian issues, those asic human issues of

people getting killed as you look to see who is responsible and it's the united states, even for many reasons that we might articulate. >> even when it's defending other people. >> i do think that is not just an issue. i do think that is a core issue about who we are in the world and what we stand for. >> let me complicated little bit and maybe try to be why i think this is complicated. >>. >> were going to have our last. >> during world war ii there was a big debate over whether we should have on fourth unconditional surrender on germany and japan. roosevelt, and the people who were against that said it will make the war go longer because they will play hard. roosevelt basically said

look, because the reason we're having world war ii is in world war i, the germans didn't really learn what war was. because it stopped, it was outside of germany. were going to bomb dresden. we're going to roll that country, go through there like sherman through georgia, only more and teach them that war is not an option. >> so sometimes, violence makes things worse. by the way, that worked. >> but that violence work, that we can control violence. >> the worst bumper sticker in the world is the one that says war is not the answer because every time i see that sticker i say it depends on what the question was. if the question was should we eradicate the jewish people on the planet, maybe war is the answer. if were going to bomb dresden, maybe war is the answer. >> were succeeded after sherman. >> we have to maintain our humanity. even in thinking, this is where foreign-policy experts do their job, we have to think about things people would rather not think about. >> we have to maintain our humanity doing it. >> you also mention within

your question this overreliance on the military dissolved every international problem and i think we can certainly see lots of evidence to support that claim. i would say in part that goes back to the fact that most americans are very distant from the military, very distance from what it means. it's the opposite of what walter was saying that since we are the ones who are engaged in the action of the country, most of the people really are engaged in it. >> i agree, the military went to war and america went to the mall. this makes it then easier to see every problem with the military as a solution, it makes it easier to say we're going to increase the military budget by some afterglow after the economical number. i'm sorry to end it there. let's have one last question. >> time gets everybody.

>> can you be brief? >> i'm not going to post my question, i'd much rather leading to the last thought that you mentioned, i think that because we use war as a historical point in our history, peace gets too comfortable. >> so peace, it's very easy to just come to human paranoia. even when there's no chaos, more likely than not we will let chaos ensued. >> will leave it at that. >> not a very cheery way to finish. but ladies and gentlemen, as i mentioned before, we are, our authors will be signing books and there is another session and a half an hour, we're talking about race, religion, ideology. >>. >> a couple moments left in this that you can see the remainder of it on our website, at booktv.org. >> the u.s. senate is about to gamble in to do work on the nomination of the next

labor secretary. the confirmation vote expected at 5:30 today, it confirmed he would be the final general manager to reach confirmation, going out president from scattered. live now to the senate floor. be offered by martyn sloan, lead pastor at harvest time, from fort smith, arkansas. reverend sloan, we're very happy to have you with us. the guest chaplain: let us pray. almighty and eternal god, who has created us and to whom we belong, and to whom we serve, it is in you that we find our purpose, peace, and prosperity. may your kingdom use this day our lawmakers to complete and carry out your will on this earth as in heaven. create in each one of them clean, courageous, and selfless