reagan dinner. that starts at 7:45 p.m. eastern. then tomorrow, president trump will be speaking at cpac. that starts live at 11:30 a.m. eastern, also on c-span. you can follow it online at c-span.org and listen with the free c-span radio app. >> sunday night on c-span's q & a, u.s. army veteran eileen rivers on her book "beyond the call" about three women who went beyond their regular duties to help women in afghanistan and further the mission. >> one experience she shared with me, there was a time when she felt there were men trying to break her and test her and see if women could actually hack it. so they had this really heavy gear, they had their weapon and they were carrying it on this road march, and she pulls her women aside and said no matter what happens, don't you dare start crying and you better keep up, because she's like i have a feeling they're going to try to

test us. that's exactly what happened. her women kept up step for step. >> eileen rivers, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. >> for today's spotlight on magazines segment, we have foreign affairs contributor andreas zimmer talking about his article, why nationalism works and why it isn't going away. good morning. ... >> those who are ruling the country and those who are ruled come from the same community. that, they share a sort of origin and that they share

future political destiny. the second thing that nationalism asks for is that the rulers rule in the interest of the majority of the population. so, as such nationalism of supposed to the day nasa schism workings rule because their father had ruled in their grandfather had ruled, such as in saudi arabia today, for example. eggs it's also post- colonialism ruled by four no leads come over nigerians, indians, and so on. it is also opposed to -- where they rule in the name of god. so, nationalism has a long history emerged in the american and french resolutions. it has become the dominant principle under which the whole city state system actually rest today. >> so, how did the word get such

a negative connotation. when we hear nationalism talked about especially in the united states, it's never a positive thing right now. how do we get that negative connotation to that word? >> i think especially in the u.s., nationalism became associated with the right after the second world war. when the u.s. and others who won the war against the nazi regime came to say nationalism was right wing exclusionary kinds of ideology. historically speaking, there were lots of left-wing movements around the world that were fiercely nationalist. if you look around the world today there still left-wing movements that are staunchly nationalist as well as right-wing movements. so, i think nationalism as such, if you take a little distance from the current policy you face

in the u.s. and elsewhere, nationalism is actually not exclusively and historically, not at all exclusively our right-wing ideology. most of the anti- colonial movements for example in the global south were colonists movements and they were nationalist opposing colonial rule. >> now, what were some of the benefits of nationalism you were talking about for countries who have people really invested in that country and that countries government. what are the benefits of that? >> well, nationalism is also a political principle of the qualities. all members of the nation should be equal with each other. they should be no further revisions either of race or of other kind of status extinction. so, nationalism historically speaking has also been a liberal

ideology or has married or entered a union with liberal ideologies. democracies, the principle of equality, of all citizens, all of these things have been pushed by nationalist movements in the 19th and 20th century. later on, nationalism was also the ideological underpinning of the development of the well general for space including in the u.s. the idea that citizens should have some solidarity with each other, even if they don't know each other, even if they are perfect strangers, these developments the quality before the wall and development of welfare states have been greatly enhanced by the idea i'm nation as a community of her shares and political destiny. >> in your article, you talk about several countries that have more nationalism than others. can you explain why some

countries exhibit more pride in their country and government than others? >> in my view, pride in the country comes from inclusionary coalition, meeting if you have a ruling coalition in a governing coalition that represents the majorities and minorities alike. it has a more encompassing boundary of the nation than individual citizens we identify more with the country. if you have a country that is divided room long racial or ethnic lines that are excluded for the governing coalition not represented in the core of the power structure than these citizens will not identify with the national narrative. they will feel rightly so excluded from a and will there be less proud of their country and nation. >> let me read a little bit from your article that speaks to that. the more encompassing that

connects it to government the more citizens will embrace the idea of the nation as a community of shared solidarity and political destiny. conversely, groups that are systematically excluded from this network will develop their own separate identities. they will find a nation a less meaningful category and identify less with that one countries do you see that happening in the world where you have a minority that doesn't feel like it's been able to participate in their power, and therefore can identify with a smaller group and not the country? >> historically speaking that was the case for the u.s. as well up to the civil rights movement. african-americans were excluded from any level of political power and therefore they allowed separate identity as well. if you look broadly around the world, there is a range of

governments or countries were historically large groups have not participated in government, in syria, for example of the countries basically ruled by a very small ethnic allowing minority, the vast majority over 80% of the population is not integrated in the power structure. in the military of the secret services, and the cabinet, and the higher levels and so on. and correspondingly, these groups develop their own vision of how the country should be governed. the identify less with the national community had more with their own excluded. >> it seems like the main thrust behind your article is that if citizens are able to participate

in their government, they feel more nationalistic pride in that government. but, if they don't have power on are able to participate in the government they don't have that same feeling of pride for their country. it is my understanding that correctly? >> absolutely. >> you could say inclusion produces identification in the opposite is true, as well. >> let's have some viewers join in that conversation. will open the lines and go to republicans you can call at 202 -- independence and once again, you can always we are always reading on social media, twitter, and @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. we will start with derek, who is calling from lakeland minnesota on the independent line, good

morning. >> "good morning america", good morning c-span. i have a quick question that i will make a comment. what country is your guest a citizen of? caller: guest: am a citizen of the u.s. and also a citizen of switzerland, where i grew up. >> great. you had said that nationalism is political, it is not. it is the fact on where you are born. and where you are a citizen of. now, i do not understand why as someone who professes themselves as a scholar would be associated with the council on foreign relations. these are people who created the cia which from basically world war ii one, the united states has never won a war, we are in perpetual war and, your organization that you belong to is the one creating this chaos,

fear, intimidation, and secrecy, that is what makes people not want to be involved in their national, political civic duty, because the control and the lovers are not being produced by we, the people. host: go ahead and respond. guest: the council on foreign relations is basically a debate club. it brings together people of the new york business community with people from the un who are here during the general assembly, it connects this new york community on foreign policy, interested community with washington, d.c. i would not give too much power to it. the decisions are made in washington, d.c. the white house, pentagon, national security staff and not by the council on foreign relations.

but, is everything, there is a polarized opinion landscape in the u.s., some individuals, obviously not you, very strongly identify with the role that the u.s. has played since the second world war. and they say you didn't know much more positive light when you do. so, for a lot of people the historical role of the u.s. is the official way of reading things and now fighting against other kinds of global dangers is actually a source of great pride for them. so, i think for the majority of citizens of the u.s., the history of foreign policy involvement of the u.s. the role as a global global leader in someone who has created the liberal order after the second world war is a considerable source of pride.

americans are actually comparatively speaking to other citizens, quite extraordinary proud of their country. >> one thing we haven't talked about was how you actually did your research to come to these conclusions on how nationalism is affected in different countries. how are you able to come up with these conclusions you had? >> well, the article is based on three different books that i wrote. so, i cannot summarize the methods in the data and so on that i used in these three books. but, we talked about before, about a very specific aspect is that political inclusion reduces national identification. that was based on a series of surveys were people were asked how proud they were there countries that i assembled. it produced a total of a giant survey with 123 countries.

then, i looked at the political power structures, the ethnic and racial power structure and related thereto together to show that more inclusionary coalition or governments actually are those were citizens are much more proud of their country. host: let's let craig calling from tulsa, oklahoma on the republican line join the conversation. good morning. >> good morning. i appreciate the c-span. you do a great job. this is an important subject. the.of nationalism, you have to ask the question, what is your nationalism tied to. now, like in the case of dictators in countries that are doing exclusionary groups and doing evil, sure, that nationalism is evil, but we can't call all nationalism evil, in fact american nationalism is

actually a wonderful thing, because of what is tied to come are finding documents and legal system. the fact that all men are created equal, even martin luther king who rightfully marched and got rights and brought everybody in, he was very nationalistic. he said, tied to our documents, all men are created equal. so american nationalism, it cannot be demonized. it's wrong to do that. there are french groups that are wrong in all countries. but american nationalism, because it's tied to our documents and if it's tied to our documents, needs to be, that type of nationalism is a wonderful thing that unites all people. there were all created equal that we all have rights endowed by her creator. that's a good thing. i think the efforts to demonize nationalism is being pushed by little groups and often times the democratic party to try to tell people you're in a group,

you're being tonight. you don't need to be nationalist, when in fact, they should be proud of america and all of the rights, everyone can vote, everyone can register and vote. everyone who is a legal citizen can have a say. so, that type of nationalism is unique and is actually acceptable nationalism on the earth. i'm very proud to be an american. host: go ahead and respond, professor. >> well, i agree that american nationalism, since it is so willing to the idea of citizenship and democracy has a tendency to be an inclusionary form of nationalism compared to others around the world. we should not forget that were exactly the boundaries of the nation are drawn also indicates the u.s. not always as inclusive in principle as it is supposed to be today.

so, up until 1860, large segments of the population were even excluded for citizenship even from being treated as humans. it took another century until political rights were granted to african-americans so the boundary of the nation of who counts as a full legitimate member of the national community, they have expanded but they haven't always been as expansive as they should be. as a matter of principle i agree with you. nationalism shouldn't be demonize story should also not forget and we already talked about that, there is a whole variety of political shadings of nationalism. he goes all the way from the left and to the right. if you look globally and comparatively, as the caller mention, there is more exclusionary and inclusionary

forms of nationalism. so, demonizing nationalism is not a good idea. but, pointing at the facts that there is different forms of nationalism even within one country within the u.s., and that they have completely different political political implications is important. >> before we take the next collar, i want to ask some questions coming up on her and the twitter feed. the first question is, is nationalism connected to isolationism? and is nationalism does it also include colonialism? does being an isolationist and nationalist the same thing? is being a colonialists and nationalists the same thing? >> well, let's talk about colonialism first. so, the western european powers and also japan who built colonial empires from the middle

of the 19th century onward, they were certainly nationalists in the sense that they believed that a specific mission of the british people to bring, as they sought civilization to the world. in the same for their french and so on. but, there was a nationalist motivation by the colonizers it was mingled with a more purely colonial lysed ideology. and the burden of the white man in these kinds of things. but, in the larger scheme of things, nationalism is incompatible with colonialism. nationalism says that every people should be governed by itself. every people should have the right to tell governance, so nigerians should be the ruling of nigerian. indian should be ruling over indians and so on.

so, so nationalism in colonialism are even opposed principles of how a country should be governed. with regard to the connection between nationalism and isolationism, again, there's different types of nationalism. there's so many different forms in which it appears. some of it is isolationist. they say country should not interfere with the affairs of other countries. everybody should mind their own business and so on. but some nationalists are also internationalist at the same time, meaning they believe the different nations cooperate together they should create world order that is based on rule of law and on -- and so on. >> tom, follow calling from sussex, new jersey. tom, good morning.

>> hello, how are you doing. >> go ahead. >> apparently everyone has their own definition of what nationalism in is. my definition is, the united states comes first, people that come to the united states should put down from their other countries and they have to put their other country second. if you're going to come to this country and that's the problem i think a lot of people want to come to this country and they want to say, i would rather be here than they are. but, there's a lot of people that come to this country in that are in this country now is fars more liberal thinking people that say, no, i shouldn't be this country shouldn't come first. and apparently that's globalism. the other thing i want to talk about and it will be quick. this whole thing, i know that you have nothing to say on it,

this national emergency. the only thing that bothers me about it is because in 1994 i had got my first semi automatic rifle in 1987. bill clinton in that administration was told everybody you have to put a ban on semi automatic weapons. i think this time i think trump made a mistake. i think he should've done what he cured because if they do that, they're putting someone like me who did not give them my semi automatic weapon back then, and i won't give it back this time. >> go ahead and respond. >> well, i don't want to talk about the emergency in the wall, i also don't want to talk about rifles if you don't mind, because it is distracting us from the topic. let's talk about immigration and so long on loyalty to one or two countries. so i think in every country of the world that is the country of

immigration, the u.s. and lots of others, there is an expectation that that is part of actually basic principles of nationalism that the newcomers make an effort to assimilate and become part of the new country. if we become citizens, they are loyal in political terms to the new country. >> i think those are general expectations you can find around the world. again there is a political struggle about what that actually means. how much assimilation should you expect. how much of a second tier loyalty to the country of origin can you tolerate. and so, it's basically there were the political debates are roaming. in my view, from now the united

states.of view, this country has been built on immigration that's a classical topic of american nationalism. therefore should continue to actually not demonize contemporary immigrants such as myself that actually you know, hold up the bar game so that if these immigrants actually go through the process of finding a new life, simulating, learning the way things are done here, then they should also not be then the older citizen should not be suspicious of them but actually embrace them. >> couple questions. do you think the winds by diverse candidates in the last election in the united states will help foster nationalism and the nice dude states? also the national review said that your article, and i'll read a little bit, members

strengthens the case for more proportional voting system. as a reminder of why it's for both of our major parties to redouble their efforts to represent a changing american electorate. so, do you think a change in how we vote and to the parties for example, may be adding a third party will help in the united states? >> zero, i do believe so and i'm surprised that the national review and you pick this up. but, indeed, one of their problems in the u.s. and a great contribution to the polarization is actually the system. it's either one party or the other party that governs. so in itself it has a tendency to polarization. a more proportional system may be combined with a multiparty system gives first of all citizens more choice. now we only have two choices and

most people are trapped by one party or the other for their entire life. there's very little switching around. it will give more choice and increase the likelihood that you can actually build an inclusionary coalition for a government that actually represents not only half but 50.2% of the population that a broader coalition will be more representative of the viewpoints and backgrounds of this population. >> let's go to paul from fort edward new york on the independent line. paul, good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a different.of view with nationalism. i tend to think that when countries political systems don't deliver economically, then that tends to make nationalism rise, especially with say the

strong man. take hitler, for instance. right after world war i their country was in shambles. their economy was terrible. so along comes the strongman, who says, i can deliver. and so to me, it kind of i'm not saying this is the same as it was back in world war i, but i'm trying to say that our present day america, both political parties are pretty much bought and paid for by the wealthy. so i would think that nationalism, someone like trump is like a person that really did not represent either party if you think about it. along came trump and i think you might see more trump's and were nationalism. that's my premises. the less your politicians deliver economically, the more you will get the nationalists fever. >> go ahead and respond, for professor. >> i kind of agree in general with what you said.

to put it in more general terms, if you have a situation where over the generation, compared to their parents, people are not making much progress or losing ground, economically and then the political parties are not really addressing the situation with their policies, then indeed you have low voter pool, large segment of the population that can then be mobilized. weather is mobilized from right-wing populist parties as is the case in some countries including the u.s. or by left-wing populist parties, that is open to the specifics of what actually happens in different countries around the world. i agree, as long as income inequality continues to grow as it did in the u.s. and many

other countries over the last couple of decades, as long as people are not making the working class individuals are not making progress in their situation compared to their parents. there is going to be a large pool of voters that can swing around between the left-wing populist, bernie sanders in a person with some of like trump. we're going to see when the conditions continue, more political instability. >> we would like to thank you for being with us today. in talking about the article, why nationalism works. thank you so much. >> thank you, jessie. >> acting white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney is the keynote speaker this evening at the conservative political action conference, ronald reagan dinner. this weekend, senator bernie sanders were kicked out of his white house run with a campaign rally at brooklyn college where

he was a student per year. you can see that saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span. next week, homeland security secretary, kiersten nielsen testifies about border security before the house homeland security committee. follow live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. you can listen with the free c-span radio app. >> pasadena is your quintessential southern california community. >> i think there is a balance of reverence for the past. people in pasadena are very proud of doing their business at city hall and having it be this fantastic spanish -- but were also home to the planetary society where he had people looking very much into the future and calyx is beyond. >> the city's tours on the road exploring the american story. this weekend we take you to pasadena, california with the help of our spectrum cable

partner. >> known for the rose bowl and its rose parade, will talk with authors from the suburb of los angeles. >> july 26, 1943 was l.a.'s pearl harbor. it was on that day in the middle of world war ii, a thick smog came in, i don't know from what direction but it got so viscous and acrid, that police officers directed traffic disappeared. it was the the beginning of having smog related automobile accidents. it was so bad mothers were dragging their children into department stores and sort of a hysteria. >> will go inside the jet propulsion laboratory's at caltech responsible for putting rovers on mars. >> the reason we are here is to do what has never been done before. we are paving the way for human exploration elsewhere in the solar system. >> watch city's tour of pasadena