this is a an hour and a half. i found that in the age of trump it's important to choose your words very carfully so i

consider them to be both wilson experts. to my mind, professor knock has done more than anything totle us what woodrow wilson had to deal with, and kell us the history and moments of woodrow wilson, to tell us what he confronted and how he confronted it and the development of his own thinking in the world he lived inch professor tony smith is the other side of the coin. has done more than anyone to tell us why this matters, because frankly, everybody president since wilson -- it's not been a question whether or not they are wilsonian but how much. still continue to guide american foreign pop si today or might say coin to haunt american foreign policy. what woodrow wilson said and what professor something i win

help us understand in a more forward-going way helps drive america today, which is why i'm particularly pleased to have the author of this book "why wilson matters" which is a darn good book, to come here and to explain it to us, and then you can go buyure own copy. so, without further adieu, professor smith, the floor is yours. [applause] >> i think everything is working. i think jeff said -- kind of introduced me in a way who introduced me, my family, who i see here tonight. my sister and i grew up in the heart of the metroplex, and my friend, karen flesher-jones, who is here, used to go with me to -- lewan where the top of the

north texas push. they closed in 1970. -- [inaudible] -- the lakewood ranch used to slip in because they would be drinking underage. karen and i were horrified because we were, too, but we thought were were to -- they were calling attention to a widespread problem near dallas. i'm glad to see that a few of you know these places. well, i have known tom for a long time, tom knock, who just kindly introduced. jim holyfield, a police officer in political science and head of the center for political

studies, i'm glad to see her here and then jeff engle is a real treat since i heard about him for a long time, and i saw that there was a reference to a book that he and tom just --ed, which -- just published, which i might as well tout myself for you. sounds interesting. i'm waiting for my copy. "when life strikes the president." scandal, death and illness in the white house. i noted that neither of the bush presidents is in it, nor is jimmy carter so i guess there are a few people who were immune but looks like it's going to be a wonderful book. well, those of you who get up early and watch cbs news white see what charlie rose says, you're world in 90 seconds im'll have to give you wilson's world

in 2,400 seconds which is 40 minutes, what we should keep yourself. to this is an excellent time to be discussing woodrow wilson, april 6th is the centennial of the declaration of war against germany. the result of which was that an army of -- by december of 1918 of 1.8 million american soldiers were in europe. 126,000 died, 204,000 were wounded. this pales in comparison with european losses. something like 11 million young europeans lost their lives, not to speak of 27 million others, including ottomans who died. but the bottom line on this was that despite the fact that our losses relative to the europeans' were sluffed, the

american contribution was decisive. it's quite possible the germans would have won the war had the united states not intervened when it did, and how it did. the result was to make woodrow wilson the presiding figure at the peace conference that opened in paris early in 1919. and finally, the person who is most responsible for the creation of the league of nations in april of 1919, announced in april of 1919. so we're are in for two years of centennials. april 2017 to april 2019, passing by what was called the armistice but what in fax was the german surrender in 1918. this war left a huge mark on the 20th century. in fact, most historians give it

more weight than they give the second world war, however near and more horrific that may seem to us. the reason is that it unleashed several forces. bolshevik revolution, the us and the rise of fascism? italy and nazi germany. after that we kind of shift our gaze to the world under the nation of western imperialism and most notably, china. this, then, was the beginning of the rise really of what was later called third world nationalist revolutionary movements. the impact of these three forces is still felt with us today, but in a way communism and fascism are more or let's deadologies. the one thing that is less commonly brought up is wilsonianism. the reason it's so important is

that it still is with us today. in fact, it's been with us ever since fdr entered the white house in 1933, particularly since the german invasion of poland in 1939. fdr was close to wilson and his secretary of state, cordell hull was in fact much, much closer. so the transposition of wilson ian thinking intomer american foreign policy came about easily with the outbreak of world war ii. all this said, not much is known or appreciated about woodrow wilson. in fact, i would say the is-if not perhaps -- he can be considered the most important president who is forgotten or disliked. he was certainly very much disliked in his own time by people who opposed the war, and to whom he repaid the favor by punishing them.

the liberal left, which had supported his presidency, and indeed supported the war, was shocked by his repression of dissidents to the war, people he labeled dissidents, people who he called the hyphens, namely german-americans, who were opposed. also irish-americans who were opposed to the war. people who were socialists or pacifists, whom he imprisoned or allows vigilant grew -- vigilante groups to take out after. and then african-americans who were treated very badly indeed. there's a three-part pbs series going on now about world war ii. i don't think it's particularly good but what is particularly good is the way it focuses on the crackdown of wilson on these people or his disregard of them as with the african-americans.

the dislike of wilson, though, continued far past the war itself. the united states did not enter the league of nations by a vote in the senate in march of 1920, confirmed later, and it was solidly reject also by me american public in the presidential election in november that year, when a republican was returned to the white house, the first of three republicans, harding, coolage and hoover. only when fdr came back that wilson came into office, that wilson began to be remembered, but even at that time he was desentice build the intellectual elite. want at the letman, george canyon, john main understand keynes, the list good coo go on. also disliked by, as time went on, the left, in the united

states. they saw him as a person who actually was talking about peace and democracy as a front for economic interests abroad with a strong military. in other words kind of a marxist approach. widespread in american universities in the 1960s, particularly into the 1970s. but the right didn't like him, either. the right didn't like him because he was for strong government and because he -- well, if your a realize, he seemed too idealistic and too much of a moralist. the bottom line on this was that wilson was simply not appreciated and most recently has been opposed by african-americans. those who have followed "black lives matter," they know there were occupations at princeton

where wilson was a student, then a professor, and then president, until early in the 20th 20th century. he was in politics. he didn't like to call it political science so it was politics. at any rate, "black lives matter" asks the legitimate question. if willson's most famous statement was that he wanted to make the world safe for democracy, why didn't he make the world safe for democracy in america for starts? okay. something jim said reminded something. this is entitled "why wilson matters." believe it or not princeton university first contacted me and said, can you change the title? we're going to bees up if you leave a title like that in. why? bus it's too positive. could you change it, please to something like "does wilson

matter? " so i have some explaining to do, think. the explanations go to a book i published in 1994, again at princeton, call "america's mission: the united states and the worldwide struggle of democracy." what this book introduced was the idea that the cold war had been won essentially not thanks to our military power and our economic power alone, much as this was true, but also because the contest between liberal internationallal jim and proletarian internappallism -- an ideology struggle -- had been won by the liberal internationalists. liberal internationalism is a polite term for rebellion.

it was a way camouflage phrase for him. what i pointed out was that what won the cold war was liberal international jim. it wasn't either of the containment policy nor the military. it was a combination of things. now, i asked -- i don't know how many of you pick it up that there be a flier distributed this evening with the opening, and the first of these -- the first point on this flier is when i called the virtuous diamond of liberal internationalism. it's a combination of democracy, multilateralism, economic openness, and american leadership. the four together resulting in either a regional or a international zone of peace.

the great promise that takes us back actually to the enlightenment. people didn't want to recognize this was wilsonian. woodrow wilson didn't leave a good record of his incoming in 1918-1919, largely because he had terrible stroke. he had a series of strokes since he was a ongoing man and was not able to finish his philosophy of politics which he wanted to do after he left the white house. he had 20 pages or so written. what i tried to do is to re-establish what wilson might have said had wilson been able to put together the pieces of the puzzle as the puzzle lay before him in 1918-1919. and the answer is to look at his analysis of germany.

germany for him was a malignant country and malignant for a combination of reasons. it authoritarian, it was militaristic, it was imperialist, it was protectionist, and as a result of these things, it thought in balance of power terms. when you put all this together, you have what he called the perfect flower of war. now, the important thing to keep in mind here is that not all the authoritarian governments are necessarily for wilson malignant. germany, however, was capable of putting all of this together, although he was careful to separate german people from what he called the german imperial government. so that when the united states declared war on germany, the united states declared war, not the government of the united states.

not against the german people, but against the germal imperial government, the government was at the origin of the problem. now, if we look at the second citation, the handout that it had for you, you will see what is the most famous declaration that wilson ever made, when he asked the congress in early april of 1917 for a declaration of war, vague the world must -- saying the world must be made safe for democracy, peace must be planted on the tip of foundation of political liberty. a steadfast concert for piece can never be maintained except bay partnership of democratic nations. no autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or to observe its covenants. must be a league of honor, partnership of opinion. only free people can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common end, and perform the

-- prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interests officer their own. here, then, is the origin of the ideas that underlay the league. it would come together predominantly as a group of democratic nations, but there was a slight problem in this. i'll get to that problem later. let me switch back to the 1940s if i can, jumping ahead to the 1940s. the 1940 sits wilson union decade. -- wilsonian decade. the system integrates the leading capitalist economies into a form of regulated capitalism that creates the greatest burst of growing and prosperity among these countries in world history. some people say it's late 19th 19th century with the british but i don't think so. secondly -- i think this was the gold senator -- was the occupation of japan and germany,

which converted these two highly authoritarian militaristic countries into, guess what? democracies. in the case of germany it mattered particularly because that allowed the marshal plan to look forward to the european union. it also sent the framework for the north atlantic treaty organization, or nato, which was created in '49. you put all of these things together, some people would throw the u.n. in but i think that is somewhat let important -- less important -- and you get, again, the virtues diamond, a place in which american leadership is in indispensable but the fact the united states is a democracy, that its klose allies are all democracies, they're joined together in a collective military situation, but they trade with each other and that they do so through multinational networks of an extraordinary sort. never before seen in world

history. countries that are not acting under authoritarian orders to do this. this is really quite an accomplishment and completely fulfills what it was that the president was looking for, i think in 1919. now, the third quote here is an astonishing quote. it is a quote from mikhail gorbachev. the cold was, gorbachev came to the united states and he went to fulton, missouri, and there are in the anniversary of churchill's famous address in 1946, said that an iron curtain was falling across europe, gorbachev, three years after the fall of that berlin wall,

declared that the end of to hold war was a victory for common sense, reason, democracy. the united nations should create structures which are authorized to impose sanctions to make use of other means of compulsion when the rights of minority groups are being violated. he went on to underscore the universality of human rights, the acceptability of international interference wherever human rights are violated. today democracy must prove it can exist not only against the antithesis of totalitarianism. this means this group from the national to the international arena. on today's alleged agenda is not just a union of democratic state but also a democratically organized global community. it's an extraordinary statement. well, see if i can find where i am in my own notes here.

during the 1990s, when the book came out, i took my ball off the eye of what was going on with liberal internationallallism. libbal university and i got -- i started writing the book on foreign policy, and so in 1997 i was at the wilson center in washington in 1998 i was -- i was at the council for foreign relations in new york, and i sort of missed what was going on in liberal international relations theory during the 1990s. finally my book came out with harvard in 2000, and i was giving book talks and write in the middle of it all, 9/11 happened. following 9/11, things came out

of the blue and that was the bush doctrine. i have the bush doctrine down here -- i'm not going read it all but we have got citations from the bush doctrine which are very meaningful. what they argue is something that at first in 2003 i wasn't quite clear what was going on. i knew that the language was -- but there was something wrong about the accent. it was like going from -- i don't know -- texas to england and you understand what is being said but you don't quite understand -- there's something about it that is peculiar. well, the bush doctrine said all the right things. if we go back to very virtuous

diamond it was all there democracy promotion, open marks, cooperation among allies, u.s. leadership, world peace. and so in the fourth entry i've got here for your takeaway pages, i had the opening statement by george w. bush, which is replete with these words, and then his final statement in the pursuit of our goal, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for, the united states must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. no nation holds these aspirations and no nation is exempt from them. america was stand firmly for the nongoshable demand of human dignity, limits of law, limited power over the state, free speech, freedom of worship, equal yates, respect for women,

religious tolerance and respect for private property, financial security of the united states must start from these core beliefs and. now, this is -- yes, this is liberal internationalism. but also is not traditional liberal internationalism. what i'm going to argue is that it differs in fundamental ways from the internationallallism thought of by wilson and the way it was thought of during the cold war period. what had happened -- i'm going through it quickly because it's very complicated argument -- is that the political science steak the united states which i'm no longer in good graces that i used to be -- began to conceptualize three ideas amazing force.

the force was called democratic peace theory. if democracy spreads, peace will spread. look at the european union. the second was democratic transition theory, that all countries can become democracies, that the transition from authoritarianism to democracy isn't that difficult. look what we did for germany japan. we can do it anywhere. the third idea was that since the desirable peace is possible through democracy, there's responsibility to protect, and the war doctrine that meant we could invade any country we wanted that that authoritarian, provided it inflicted huge human rights crisis on its citizenry. well, -- where is tom nauk -- as

tom would say, the -- my reaction to this was not only to be against the war but to suddenly say, what have i been doing, writing all of this words about liberal internationalism when it's under the flag of wilsonianism, democracy and promotion of human rights that we're engaged in this -- well, what did obama call it -- dumb war with the invasion of iraq. not that the war in afghan to get rid of al qaeda was wrong, but to fly the flag of operation iraqi freedom, that iraq and afghanistan are going to be democratized? what is going on here? so, i for a while was flummoxed. i wasn't sure but that my opposition to the war should also translate interest an

opposition to things that i personally liked, like human rights watch, amnesty international, doctors without border. now name it, i'm probably a member of it. okay. so, this went on for a while, this kind of confusion. how had the 1940s, the greatest decade in the history of american foreign policy -- how had it given way, beginning in 19 -- 2003, to the greatest disaster in american foreign policy, which continues with us today. in both cases, using liberal internationalism as an peninsula explanation, the only way to deal this was to go back to woodrow wilson and study in more departments than i had what willson had to say. what i discovered -- is this

better? >> okay. >> okay. so, what i found in going back to woodrow wilson was that for him democracy was very much a question of time and place. you cannot expect the democracy will split globally, either quickly or easily or perhaps at all. he illustrated this with the french revolution, opposed to american revolution, our revolution, he said, was bare lay rev lugs at all. we were -- revolution at all. we were simply asserting the right of the english in institutions that were colonial and had been built by the english. the french -- we were doing it with the support of the church. and the church that was most involved in this was, guess which the one? the presbyterian church and

woodrow wilson was a member of. in fact calvinism in general was the opposite of -- the anglican church. so, what we have here is a argument that democracy is something that is suited only to certain peoples who have had a certain cultural history to them. well, if that's the case, what are these cultural prerequisites? here the more i read wilson, the more i became persuade that there was the dog that didn't bark, the dog that didn't bark was calvinism and it was particularly the covenant of the presbyterian church. this was the template for wilson of how democracy comes about. now, i don't know how many of

you belong to the group of churches that todayening be called affiliated with presbyterians in terms of other domestic organizations, but it's not just churches. it's also judaism and explains at least in part, think, why wilson was so welcoming of jewish americans into princeton and then into his administration, and also was protective of the notion of a jewish homeland in the far east. i mean, the middle east. okay, so, what we have then is the notion that you can strip it away from calvinism. don't have to be christian. don't have to be white. and in fact, all that these protestant denominations began to do was to found universities, like the american university in cairo, the american university in beirut, also in iran turkey. they were going to convert the locals to christians. well, didn't work very well.

what they did convert them to was constitutionalism. and many of the liberal movements that we have seen in the middle east come out of these plants in the late 19th 19th and early 20th century, that are related to the protestant schools that spread in so many part offed the world. well, let's get back if we can without me running over time, to what was going on in the united states. in the united states, the critical mistake that was made was to think that local cultures don't matter. now, it's true, we were a necessary condition to german democratization but we were far from a sufficient condition for germans democratization, that depend largely on the german

peoples themselves. could not have happened without a strong german middle class, strong german protestant and in this case catholic movement, they were antifascist, without a high level development, without a perceived doctrine from even before from the kaiser their notion that civic, awe honor and duty of bureaucrats. the germans were not difficult to democratize. germany is very much germany and yet in many weighed it'ses fundmentally changed by the american occupation. or take the only country that democratized after world war i and there was no american occupation, czechoslovakia. czechoslovakia became a model democracy by the '30s and did so not because american troops occupied check check -- check

check but because after czechs s and the slovacs and what they word out. this is what happened in iraq. do you that these people really thought that democracy was just going to spring out in iraq? i mean, anyone who looks -- anyone who has any background in the area, would have said this is an absurd belief, and yet i can document that it was a real belief. now, know what some of your are thinking, you're thinking this was all a facade of oversomething else, really the weapons of mass destruction, please, it was not the weapons of mass destruction, everybody in washington knew, every want clued in this was the calling card but there were other persuasions other, arguments that are a little more

persuasive. that president bush wanted to show his father he could do something right, or that the there was a lot of oil there and we could beat opec if we got ahold of that oil, or look at the geostrategic position of iraq. touches or friends, israel and jordan and it's also -- and saudi arabia and also touches our enemies, syria and iran. what a beautiful place to hold, with all that oil, and to show the world what we can do. so that democracy was just sort of an afternoon thought. it real -- afterthought. it it wasn't an afterthought. was in the forefront on the global war or terrorism. i'm not saying the other factors didn't matter. i think they did. i'm not giving only one cause of the invasion there was belief

totally mistaken, we could democratize these countries and that in doing so, we would create the same kind of peaceful attitude in the arab middle east that we created with the europeans union. now, you're asking yourself, how do i know this? well, i think i know it because the ideology is very easy to see how it went from university seminar rooms into the white house. there's what i call a food chain or can also be called a gravy chain because money is involved in it -- that goes from harvard and yale and princeton and stanford and other leading organizations, into groups like working ocean the american enterprise institute oar variety other places where policymakers go, and thearm 1990s were a time when everybody wanted to

know, now what do we do? we're the world's only super power. what are we going to do with all this power? what the purpose to our sister and the answer was, we'll just democratize as much of the world as we can. bring peace, freedom, prosperity, and an increase in american nationalist security. you can see this in specific groups. the progressive policy institute, which was related to the democratic party, is mind-boggling to read the statements which they put out, or the project nor new american century, which was the center of the neoconservative movement. okay. it can be easily documented that these people went into overdrive to push the idea that the iraq war was going to be easily won, democracy would be the result, and then they would be falling like dominoes in the middle east

as democracy took hold. we see this even more strikingly to me more worrisome to me is studies from totally nonpartisan sources, rand, major federal -- is in santa monica, california. got all kinds of great government grantses to write these enormous studies which you will see listed in your handout today. you can get them for free online, so today called such things as nations -- a beginner's guide to nation-building. nation and state building. how we are going democratize all these people? democratize all these anymore are you kidding? we're going to democratize afghan? i mean, what possible belief could hold up for five minutes

to such propossess produce idea? well, tens of millions of dollars went into this, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. billions of dollars were spent, proving that it could health what it proved is that it couldn't happen. well, what occurs to me in all of this is the notion and the bush white house that it will happen. he gets elected a second time. believe it or not. what i can't to do in making my argument is to say that it doesn't stop here. it doesn't stop. this isn't a neoconservative plant within the republican party. if you look at my handouts -- we have the people who weren't measures. anumber five on the handout -- to a nation with 2009 publication of nation-building,

it includes prominent german, swedish, high government officials, people who have been secretary or equivalent of secretaries of state, and also includes kofi anan. one history to me is how anybody came to this belief. the men who wrote this -- some are some women like an three ya -- samantha power -- who had ideas that they were trained at these best universities during the cold war, by professors who knew better in all of this dish mean, knew better than all of this conceptually because i had been trained by these people myself. okay so what happeneds then...

he calls it the obama doctrine. there was no such thing. it does not exist. obama simply updated the bush doctrine. he did not change it. this is as good an argument as i can find to show the power of ideas. i will give you just two examples of this during the obama years. first, the endless decision making he had to go through during 2009 to decide whether to search afghanistan or not. then it is said to do so.

after he said, he spent all of his time reading about vietnam. he did not read about vietnam i'm sure of it. but he didn't read the reports in the general's awful book called counterinsurgency, and manual. all of which were nation and state building devices which either passed over vietnam or just talk about vietnam without coming to any real conclusions. those also are available online for free and they are listed transport so obama searched. so he did not search as much as the secretary of state wanted to only an additional 30,000 service members in 2010. he said he would have them by 2014 that is three years ago. secretary clinton wanted 100,000 in wanted that to increase. okay this is all a very

unfortunate mistake. but obama, it is amazing because in the book i have quote - after quote - from it. he did not learn from the mistake that he actually thought that he was winning in afghanistan. i do not know what he thought he was winning with but at any rate he thought he was winning. so in 2011, when spring emerged, what did he do? he did what any liberal would do. he saluted the - so that i have to admit that he did not intervene in libya. in causing intervention in libya a business mistake of his presidency -- the biggest mistake of his presidency. it was actually hillary is doing not his. have corset i have from obama that will go over. put all kinds of sugarcoating on it about how egyptian people are going to show the world the 6000 years of history is behind

them as he introduced democracy into egypt. 2011. okay, as far as libya goes is going to be exactly the same. they would finally be democratic. and as for hillary, in october 2011, qaddafi was killed. same as news came and say what you have to say about this? she said, we came, we saw, he died. probably a million people have died thanks to his fall. of course he was a madman and a cruel authoritarian. there was nothing that was going to create anything other than anarchy in that country if he decapitated it. this takes us to the end of the line because by 2011, they were also saying obama and secretary clinton the sod had to go. he was unilaterally opposed by washington. had they contacted tehran?

of course not. they decided themselves that assad had to go. so he would. in their going to find the so-called moderate arabs. by 2014, president obama admitted in public testimony that they were maybe five or six they had found. 546. in other words there was no such thing as the moderate arabs. there were a few but most of them were friends for al qaeda just wanted our weapons. syria, except for the kurds, the kurds are the single exception here. i can get into why obama became a liberal internationalist or was one. part of it came from the fact that he was born that way. as a black man, as a constitutional lawyer, as a community organizer in chicago. what do you expect? but he also used all of the buzzwords of the time. he used words like the universal appeal of democracy, the universal value of democracy, and nonnegotiable

human rights that had to be anywhere in the world if anything more than george bush did it, so we get to finally 2015 and the light comes on in this nation and state building thing was a mistake all along but it is too late. he only has a year and a few months left in his presidency when he finally announces to his cabinet that the whole thing has been a mistake. the question is how the mistake took so long to be corrected. let me conclude by turning to your next subject, the first hundred days of donald trump. one way they were corrected by the election of donald trump as president of the united states. liberal internationalism itself in. it got involved in imperialist wars that it could not win and

that for good reason and did and scared the american public. about 3 million american servicemembers have now served in muslim countries since 2003. they come back to their families with posttraumatic stress syndrome, they can come back with all kinds of tales of suicides taking more of their colleagues than enemy fire. with defeat written all over them because they have been defeated, sorry to tell you this, we have been defeated time and time again in these wars and we will continue to be defeated in these wars. afghanistan is going south for sure. the whole thing is unbelievable. not unbelievable, it is totally believable but that any rate this scares and angers the

american public and donald trump says something very important. he says i'm not going to push human rights and democracy. we will defend the national interest but we are not going to engage in this will of the west talk about human rights. he called her to go on and congratulated him for winning the election. eric one is authoritarian, folks, let's not pretend he is not and he was contradicting his own secretary of state saying the election was rigged and all these people are in jail and torture is going on, doesn't matter to donald trump. i don't think it would have mattered, we cannot preach these things to people who are not ready to hear us. it doesn't matter, we would certainly like them to become this way but with a respect human rights giving equality to women and so on and so forth but

one of the best ways to ensure they won't is to force them to do it. in guatemala there is a statement, our culture is our resistance. so you have the mayan communities asserting their mayan personality, that is fine in guatemala. in the muslim world, becoming more muslims and they have been in generations in part because of these pushes from outside. i agree with donald trump on this, there's a significant difference between trump and wilson. wilson was not going to engage in war to bring about -- he was not an imperialist, he was an idealist but he was not a utopian and was not an

imperialist. he would create something that would protect democracy and foster democracies where they had some chance of existing but wasn't going to send in the troops to enforce people to do this. trump, so far as i can see is not interested in a league with any gun, leaving the paris climate accord, the transpacific economic agreement, he is leaving the kinds of multinational organizations that can sponsor democracy and alliances among democratic people. for this reason, although you can see superficial similarity between wilson and trump, the differences outweigh the similarities. the second, i will conclude on this is something i haven't talked about at all and that is

the neoliberal economic globalization. this was something you might say is liberal internationalist and in its way it is except that for woodrow wilson, democracy always had to be regulated. think canada, sweden, any of the scandinavian countries. there had to be ways in which democracy wasn't going to be undermined by capitalism but instead strengthened by capitalism. wilson was not against a free market but in unregulated free market. think how many banks collapsed in the united states between 2007, and 2009. not a single major canadian bank collapsed. they are regulated, that is the difference. also immigration, they don't

have immigration problems. - the point here is this economic globalization that was unregulated created the extraordinary economic disparity in the united states, probably the largest have ever existed in this country, certainly has great as any never existed that has resulted in not only relative but absolute decline in the purchasing power of at least 60% of our population. of course these people are going to vote for donald trump. he says they are globalizing the middle-class and impoverishing our middle-class. he is right. the trouble is he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. what he does is allows crony capitalism. he puts his daughter and his sons in charge of his yes, we should probably go to

the corporate income tax. from the very high level it is not to something like 10 percent. okay fine. but i think this is something that bernie sanders and senator elizabeth warren and nobel prize -- would agree with. in short, there is something of an agreement among people like senator sanders and warren. that economic globalization got out of hand and an agreement with trump but they have a solution that will reinforce the democracy but donald trump is going in the other direction. let me conclude by saying that wilson i think would say in effect, physician hills myself. we have enough problems at home. the drug problem, prisons, inequality. the actual decline in the

purchasing power of the lower 60 or 80 percent of the population. and so i would conclude by saying why lawson matters. that wilson would have seen all of this but there is nothing that wilson would not have seen and what is going on today. and that is what i would like to conclude with a paid i cannot find which is the last statement on the handout sheet that i have. it is his famous address. you have it? the nation service i'm sure tom knows, a princeton graduate. this is the princeton motto. must be kept alive or we will never see an end, we are endangered to lose our identity.

i need not tell you i believe in full explicit instruction in history and politics, and what men attempted and accomplished through the changes and purpose. you do not know the world until you know the men who have possessed it and tried it before you would put anything upon it. there is no sanity comparable to that which is schooled in the thoughts that will keep. do you wonder that i ask for the old memory of times gone by, the old stealing in precedent and tradition and keeping states with the past as preparation for leadership in the days of social change. that is why wilson matters, thank you for your attention.. [applause]

>> thank you all. we have questions. [inaudible] >> you mentioned during your presentation wilson and calvinism.m. can you explain the relationship between wilsonian internationalism and calvinism, what is the relationship between them and cultural prerequisites necessary for democracy.and the >> interesting thing about wilson, the son and grandson of

presbyterian ministers, read the sections from the bible every day. the thing i found so interesting about the presbyterian this was they have two books, the pick up aliens do too. one is the book of warship which has to do with beliefs about all presbyterians must have a. the other is the book of order. the book of order reads like a constitution.n. what you find in this is to be a minister, a seminary recognized by the presbyterian church wher princeton, at the time. and greek and latin and church history, you would be vetted given you are ordained as a

minister and the other ministers will propose you to congregations in need of the minister. the reformed jury is like this too, you are seeing this. which they got, it comes from the cincinnati movement in ohio and the protestant reformation. there are christian organizations, they will save the episcopalians are something like this. secondly the congregation is empowered. they associate themselves with the minister when he or now she,

ministers. the covenants which is the center of this is changeable. there are many presbyterian ministers just as there are many women rabbis.th the truth is homosexual ministers in the presbyterian church and judaism too. what we see is a way in which the constitution changes over time. if you look at i have a definition of the covenant froms richard, if you look at the covenant and if you think about getting out one of these extraordinary books of orders at

this presbyterians, and terrific if you are a democrat. they have checks and balances built in, all kinds of freedoms, speech built into them. this becomes the template for the american constitution. in many ways these dissident calvinists waged the revolutionary war against the anglican brits. in boston, the major calvinists burial site because the massachusetts bay colony was founded by calvinists was dug up to build an anglican church. do you know what this does? you get mad and enter a revolutionary force so princeton

itself became a bastion, in princeton, into this calvinists stuff, john witherspoon, one thing i found out was the greatness of the scottish and black man which i haven't appreciated, the presbyterians, the presbyterian church, the most powerful in scotland.po there was an early contact between enlightened thinkers ke like adam smith and david hume and the church so by the time witherspoon arrived in princeton in 1773, there is nothing fate will teach you the reason cannot sustain. nothing the reason cannot sustain.

this is mating of the enlightenment, quite extraordinary if you ask me and this is why we see various groups that have long sessions of prayer, or religious meditation entering into conversation with one another, and the great statements by wilson on the covenant of the league of nations, it is all there. finally in kansas city onns september 9, 1919, wilson got so excited that he held up, waved at the crowd his copy of the covenant and said this is the covenant of the league of nations. i am a descendent of the covenanters of scotland. this is the covenant and by

covenant he meant constitution. what other people can become lake this? you don't have to be christian, you don't have to be white. we can argue about a lot of countries.be tunisia, a functioning liberal democracy. i happen to think so.ma cuba has a lot of ingredients that can lead to liberal democratic takeover. it is not particularly christian anymore either. it is not restricted. what wilson was trying to do was overcome the idea that you have to be white, of british defend and have to be a christian, particularly not a catholic or evangelical to be a full-fledged american.fu it was enough to be a liberal democrat to be an american.at -r

that was one of his -- >> a couple quick questions. since wilson, every president that has followed him has been wilsonian to a degree more or less. i want to ask you how wilsonian with lyndon johnson? >> that is fair. since fdr. neither nixon nor lbj where particularly wilsonian. i do have reservations for these people. nobody talked so stridently against, they would engage in open economies worldwide, they saw democracies and the nato as important to us. the idea that lbj or nixon,

trump saluted the british exit from the eu, trump repeatedly ep marked german leadership of the eu, for particular criticism. unthinkable that lbj or richard nixon ever would have adopted positions so extremely and i liberal. to someone like me it is shocking he has begun to reverse himself, good. just like north korea reversing itself in australia. i don't know. can you define the difference between capitalism and corporatism and give some idea

how it affects democracy in the way we are living today. >> that is a really hard question. what i would say is capitalism can be of many different types, many different countries, small capitalism, corporate capitalism, corporate capitalism has the capacity to be multinational, to be global and that is the point they begin to find the cheapest resources. if they pollute that is up to the local people to decide, to pay the lowest wages, if it is not unionized, if they park their profits abroad because to bring them home means they are taxed, that is the corporations to decide. what took my breath away with last year when apple corporation was told by the european commission it had to give $14 billion in profits.he irish

anybody remember this, and they said absolutely not, we have all these corporate savings, if we tax apple the others won't come. the european commission said the united states should tax them. apple is an american company, the apple administration immediately said we don't tax corporate profits abroad. a certain appeal when he gets angry at things like this and i hope he lowers corporate taxes. i think their too high.d so more money is repatriated at a reasonable rate and injected into the american economy. a young lady from princeton wanted to say something. that is not the young lady from

princeton. >> nothing to do with princeton. do you know if wilson -- what is politics of place. the right regime for many people, the culture, religion, and all those factors mattered to what kind of government woul succeed in that context. montesquieu, you may know, was the thinker most often cited by the founding fathers so i would imagine wilson probably did know something about montesquieu, the source of the inspiration for checks and balances, that idea is at the core of what you are

talking about.t.ea >> it is at the core. the reason -- he knew about it. the spirit of the law, that kind of thing. there was enormous respect for the greatest thinkers. he did not like the french revolution so he avoided the french. the problem with the french illustrates the point. they made the mistake of revolting against the throne and the altar. they destroyed the catholic church and the monarchy. in the united states the revolution was backed by the church, many leading churches.t instead of the institutions, claimed institutions, it is not

evident to me he read him, he read other people.th burke was the first mentioned and was particularly the british historians, kept a log of everybody who wrote -- something i mentioned in 70 volumes, there was one reference to a meal. >> a microphone for the next one. they have not yet. look at it on the way out. as a card-carrying liberal internationalist i want to push back, i am going to defend the bush doctrine. and the obama doctrine.

because it strikes me, the general public has about wilson. they often associate him with failure. he did not achieve the world he wanted, and achieved american participation.ld and getting 94% of it right, focusing on the 6%.ent th the same could be applied to bush and obama, for all of their faults and exuberance, it is is true they are trying to promote the diamond, to create a world in the 21st century which is different than wilson's but in

the sense of promoting democracy to promote civil rights around the world to promote free vi markets around the world, all of which wilson, and the critique is if it is fair to look at the faults of the obama and bush years, they could argue their heart is in the right place and this is the kicker. if your primary critique is creating democracy and places it naturally wouldn't fit it is hard to know until you try. >> you are on my side. oh boy.

the gentlemen who talked about spirit of the laws, wilson has seen this failure but redeemed by fdr in the 1940s, that is why people like professor nock and are trying to rehabilitate him. the 40s and 80s in which the brazilian in -- wilsonian vision triumphed only undercut by his own pride or hubris, tragic flaw. you weren't in political science, divided into a bunch of different domains with individual countries on their

own bottoms.id wilson was compared to political scientists, and came to comparative politics. with preconditions and sequences. this is a long list of them, included such things as the middle-class, some tradition of consent of the governed, limits of central government and social contract that was provided and e long list of these. look what happened in portugal and spain. happe it is a long process.

what occurs is you need the equivalent of this, you try to lay out a series of differences from the democratic transition crowds, it is not a mystery and if you had known about germany, if you look at germany, to be a democracy. it is not a matter of determine government but the german people, to make this transformation. it is unbelievable to see it come in germany with afghanistan. the differences between the two and if you want to wage war, i am not a pacifist, i'm for

waging war against afghanistan i want to get rid of isis. that is what i want to get rid of. a two finger one. sam huntington agrees with me completely in the gray. the most famous, political person going several years ago.h one of two people are academics read the third wave. i don't remember your name. in t hours straight.

unless they attack us. then if they attack us we will take them on of course. i will stand up i guess. when you were talking about the middle east, i thought i understood you to say that unless a country has got a cultural affinity or history with democracy, they are not going to be democratic and i said okay. i said okay. ataturk proved he tried to take turkey out of the middle east that everyone proved he cannot take the middle east out of turkey. how do you explain culturally dissimilar countries like japan and south korea, asian countries embraced democracy, or is russia a western country? >> each of these have to be looked at individually and what you will find in most of these

countries, american or british influence, outside influences are very important, educated and cosmopolitan. you find a movement in south korea, presbyterians, how many of you know that, so are catholics and since the vatican reforms, democracy, to catholics and presbyterians, none of this is to be found in mother russia. it is crony capitalism, they had absolutely -- south africa, chile is another one. all the ingredients were there

when next and, pulled the rug. i think chile is a stable, functioning democracy. to bed -- go back to this point, the nixon years like the lbj years were not happy. >> time for one more question. you get to have his place. just so you know.

>> would you agree that the philosophy, wilson's statement that america will make the world safe for democracy, looking back, terribly misguided to the point of disaster us -- presidents buying into this, to bear any burden. we are going to invade iraq, modern day kaiser, do the same thing in world war ii, a succession of disasters when this philosophy is applied too broadly. >> that is an excellent point and i wonder if wilson hasn't

been taken out of context. i think no phrase has been more debated in the wilson literature then what he meant when he said the world must be made safe for democracy. he is very worried in 1919 that democracy was going to fail in most places. when he went to paris he was shocked at the way the french, the british and the italians not only didn't cooperate with each other but didn't cooperate with him either and he was going to create a league of democracies with governments all of which were thinking in terms of balance of power and revenge. for him, therefore, the league had to be run by the united states, or as he put it in the famous words that became one of john cooper's books, we would break the heart of the world,

break the heart of the world we did because we didn't join and by not joining the league became too week but a total failure. the question is from my point of view, i know john cooper agrees with me. the league was seen as a defensive organization. they bear any price or any burden. it was implied in article 10 of the league of nations lose if you read article 10, i don't see it on article 10. the council of the league consult with the member governments, does not say we are pooling the council to override

the american congress. this goes back to the illness of wilson and all the rest we don't have time to get into. the point is these later expressions of faith had to do with exaggerated fear of cronyism but all liberal internationalists shared. liberal internationalism understood bolshevism or communism was a dire threat to liberal democracy. you will not find liberal internationalists, authoritarian governments against communists in hopes that eventually the authoritarian governments will mend their way in south africa, put our arm around the south african apartheid regime and by

reassuring them they can get rid of apartheid. wilson is protected from it, the defense of, not offenses nature he placed, he really was worried about democracy surviving in another war. >> as we all are. >> thank you for giving us that, thank you for coming. let me quickly remind you there are copies of the book available, let me remind you i spent all weekend, really deep and good and thoughtful.

>> next week on c-span, monday at 8:00 eastern nasa's coverage of the first total solar eclipse visible across the united states in 100 years. >> the eclipse is important because these bodies come into alignment in a cosmic moment that we are all part of. >> tuesday at 10:00 pm live coverage of donald trump's rally in phoenix. wednesday at 8:00 pm, george w. bush and bill clinton on leadership. >> somebody else too and i liked it. i got lucky. all these people tell you they were born -- they were full of bull. >> with the budget, something for congress to handle, pending proposal for the federal budget. friday a profile interview with agriculture secretary sonny perdue. >> political history when i was born in 1946 in perry, georgia,

they stamp democrat on the birth certificate. i made a political decision, truth in advertising in 1998 to change parties, became a republican at that time. >> holiday:30 by a conversation with black and devcon founder jeff moss. >> no information security for any of us, the only people doing security were in the military or banks, this is a hobby. there were jobs, there was money at risk was all of a sudden hackers started getting jobs doing security. >> watch on c-span and c-span.org and listen using the c-span radio apps. >> yesterday secretary of state rex tillerson spoke about the agency's hiring practices and diversity programs