post world war ii through the work of urban planner edward logue. then at book people book snore austin, texas are no h.w. brand's recount of the settling of the american west. on thursday at barnes & noble in new york city, pamly new kirk will argue that workplace initiatives have largely failed. and then on friday on the west coast at romans book store in pasadena, california, too talk on the 1965 debate between james baldwin and william f. buckley over the civil rights movement. all events are open to the public. if glory attendance, take picture. and tag us. >> good afternoon. welcome to the school of national affairs, i'm the associate dean for faculty fairs

and it's my honor to introduce the event with professor amitai etzioni whose book has just been published. dr. etzioni is a world famous, indeed legendary person, socialilpost whose over 30 books have made an enorm more impact on all to world hitches career began with a ba and ma in sociology from hebrew university of jerusalem in 1954 and 1956 respectively. and a ph.d from the university of california berkeley in 1958. he taught at columbia university before joining george washington university in 1980 and and in 1993 the -- among his most influential bookses the act of society published in 1968, through his career professor etzioni maintained a high degree of visible as a public

intellectual and contributed to he eats debates regarding bar and peace, with books such as winning without war, 1964. two years ago he published avoicing war with china. his new book, response to the challenge faced by the liberal international order from populism and spits that a new international order is evolving, something he calls the nation-centered system which is more nationalist and let supraunlawful has to could not be more timefully today's political discourses so join me in welcoming amitai etzioni. [applause] >> thank you very much. generous introduction, and mentioning my book. on my tombstone i want it to say all the active society. so thank you very much. and thank you for joining me. i'm very much looking forward to part of this morning -- afternoon we have a discussion so let me just say a few

introductory comments. i'll lay the ground for what i hope we can talk about. so frankly when i wrote that book, it was at more than two years ago, i had the vaguest idea that in effect i was writing a book about political life and society after trump. because that's really the issue, which concerns me, how we are going to basically have a project of reconstruction of our democratic institution but above all, of our national community and i want to explain that because these days, very good reason, a lot of attention is focused on politics and policies that is the natural of this town and what is most on forefront of people's minds. but behind that there's a big --

a very deep societal crisis, and when we talk about polarization, we not talk about only in the republicans move to the right, the democrats move to the left, but the society has become increasingly divisive, increasingly tribal. illustrated by something which almost sounds like silly joke, republicans don't want their daughters to mary democrats and democrats don't were daughters to marry republicans. friendships break up, communities are paralyzed. the government is paralyzed. look at something simple as the infrastructure. the infrastructure is not blue, it's not red. nobody disagreeing that we need to fix at the infrastructure. the democratics want to do it one, the republicans another way. in a fairly normal political system there would be negotiated in an afternoon and now we cannot move the bridges

crumbling. the symbol for me much larger picture. so with asking myself to what kind of vision do we need for the world -- for the world of reconstruction in which we pull together and i want to be very clear about this before i go onemer step further. i'm not talking about mindless unity. sometimes when president obama or john mccain said we're not red americans, martinez blue americans, we're americans, sounds like they want to bland everything down into one unity, and successful

marriage, who stay together, to couples who break up, it turns out the they fight about as often but they successful couples fight better. what does it mean to fight better? one is follow implicit ors peri. all the issues we need to apply

on a national level. we have to return to a civility which allows -- the two parties will not demonize each other but -- in the senate used to be a club. night longer a club. people who would argue, the whole point. no saying in a successful marriage this two parties don't vie for change the budget and the division of labor but do in a way that they still want n to stay married so fighting so to speak with one hand tied behind their back. we not repressing diversity, just bonding it. second part which is even more important, is both sides remember that we have some common goods. that we have in the case of couple, the children and the case of the nation -- say climate. some things we all share, and

only if you commit to the community and not only to the fraction, then the ability to make sacrifices and that is real a point that is very crucial because when i start discussing the book in other meetings, i off ask what beaut inequality or racism or the climate? and my answer is, that all these things presume that we have some commitment toes each because we all assume we make some sacrifice for our for instance afghanistan, the first loyalty of people by and large is to their tribe. as a result they're unable to function as a state.

in iraq it's not as severe. there's some minor sense of nation but still people first obligation and commitment and is the sun sunni, shia and kurds and makes it difficult to function but this plague has spread to other countries. sometimes easier to see in another nation. look what is happening in britain. the model of democracy, you have three camps, one camp wants to leave brexit at any cost. one camp wants to stay in brexit and one wants to leave under certain conditions. three camps. no three years in complete loggerheads. in any place where there is enough of a sense of community, people say, we have to find a way out of that deadlock. it doesn't have to be a compromise. can be two and a half, but the notion that you go on year after

year and you paralyze the -- reflects the unbilleddable bridges in society. let me use another image to make this point because it's crucial. ... >> talking about, they don't need to be unwanted and to be indistinguishable americans. they would argument this brief americans tradition. if you talk about hyphenated americans. it's time for people to be irish americans, swedish americans, which means that combined larger

to the company. some cultures, country of all and so-and-so. the american part of the, if we could differentiate. it clearly belongs to the. differentiate national service clearly belongs in the shared bucks. if a collection of where they are voting, is long is they bought in unity. image of a satellite, different colors, but they all stay complete. and give enough human unity. the image i find hopeful. instead of a mosaic. is more beautiful because it has

different pieces in different colors and even shapes. but it is bonded in the framework. it is glued together. they may evenly cast a framework of a time. but they need to maintain the framework. in a larger conception, to specific issues, the area of free trade. that is one of our leading economists, correct me. free trade for monday people is almost a faith. if you don't believe in free trade, your ignoramus and you just don't get it. i'm sorry to judge you but the free trade, anywhere anytime, is part of the economy and try a

freer trade. the difference in the extent to which they are diminished. then you read what is called a free-trade agreement. there are 16 pages of things you cannot do on free trade. you cannot come to the united states because you cannot import products from mexico. they have to come from employees and pay at least $15 an hour. they cannot sell computers from national security. they are endless limitations of trades in the free-trade agreement, they changed the kind of management. once you accept that, then you can see why somebody it's not up for trade. i would argue, and protect the community and attorney, revolutionary idea no.

the talks about how much and how kind of a measurement we want. both of it is irrelevant because trade is destroys communities. free-trade is destroying communities. look at the coal miners in west virginia. we are now staying that we don't want call miners anymore. so they close the coal minds. they have jobs in colorado. they moved to colorado. they move into the videos and they live behind the social fabric in the place there, and it is buried in the school their children and their social fabricating. that's not the end of the story. two years in colorado and finally the begin to accept rules. forum some kind of fabric. they have an oil glut, brokers

in detroit, moved to detroit. they have unlimited free trade. so you move to close. you move is it too close to free-trade and you get attorne attorneys, they destroy the fabric. it doesn't mean they should not try to have less managed things. that means we need to be able to compensate will used to call assistance to the trade. we find ways to help communities to survive. but so far, the journey has been much stronger than the trade adjustment efficiencies. and that is one of the reasons that so monday people in this country they have uprooted. it is one reason. globalism. take another issue, immigration. i am a victim.

i'm in all favor. sociologically, we do have high levels of immigration, from different cultural different backgrounds, it creates a need for society to date adjust. one of the major reasons we kind of nationalism is sweeping europe and i will come back to this in a moment, is the reaction to a large people from the goat from different backgrounds. we should have immigration but they need to increase the capacity to absorb the immigrants. and then into some kind of relationship between the loophole immigration and the absorption capacity. what i've said so far, is the need for nationbuilding, the

change of the norms, the wavy conduct our politics and that you are part of a family and they widely contest the various issues that they need to arrive. adaptation to specific policies. the go back now to the larger picture on the flashback. what happened on the last years, is the wave of so-called bad nationalism, is russian over practically all over the societies and showing them civilians. specific extended difference from country to country but the nature of the bank, is fixed. worldwide. the most recent example is in egypt. the nationalism, supported by

the party nonpower. the judge took cancerous year, to enter pledge the muslim of the majority measure autonomy. an overnight, they struck out the metonymy and turn it basically into another gaza, lockdown place. and beyond that, they are changing the law. it's a little complicated but basically you have to heat the ba and to be a i'm going citizen. act 200 million muslims in india and are all becoming somewhere between the second rate citizen. looks what's happening in turkey. turkey was founded secular democracy. it was a perfect. but it was a solid democracy.

islamic nationalism. hungary and poland, are very much moving international australian governments. all other democracies you have powerful increasingly powerful, nationalistic parties including germany. that is all loaded but what it's not is in response the whole spectrum. used to be centered is now really right-center because it is the greatest feeling you can siphon off of the most frightening extreme so the current correction is to respond to that wave which of course has

an effect in our own country. the trump in. i am a nationalist. one made it through, that is been given and comes on the liberal globalism, frankly they attract the ideas. the ideas that we go into some of the past national states, and we stop and remove boulders, treat each other is one global community and realize that monday problems that we cannot on a national loophole in the climate, we try to fix it one country obviously, if one country fixes it, lots of billion-dollar purchase from australia. if one country is cutting down

its emissions, the other countries are increasing them, they get a place. it's a very high loophole of global. ebola human trafficking, all of this seems to acquire some forum of national covenants. it's very attractive about not seeing everybody's brothers and sisters affected in princeton, and about chinese children. it's very difficult. [inaudible conversation] the problem is that idea is and in the whole book, the entire community to show how we can prevent things from a global place. we have a global language.

hindus, nobody likes to admit it but in the case of the young, the fans, or the hungarians over the irish, they speak english. in the french, they have their own language. we can get now i message to the end of the world, and probably in a day. we used to have economic synthesis, and what is missing and you've not succeeded, is forming the identity and the sense of community in the sense of belonging. the sense of meaning from the national loophole to the global loophole. so you you have an effect to use more technical terms, trying to have a global administrator of each state, and the nation, and

the community that is in the state. that cannot be done. let me prove. here is the story, you was additionally formed in a small number of nations and washing very well. increase trade, benefit of all sides, technical adjustments, and increase efficiencies. i'm a favorite little story that illustrates the larger picture. the used to be that if you want to shake something, from germany to france, you would corporate trade and stop the french border unloaded, and loaded on the french trade, because the trains couldn't not go from one country to the other. then they were all sorted now on the same train you can travel

all over europe now. so that works fine. then the european commission decided to expand. and is members, and they thought they were doing karen c and policy and probably more touchy. suddenly the commission told people that you cannot have more than x amount of deficit, you have to spend 3 percent in r&d and so on and so on, making poignancy his in the supra- national loophole but peoples emotion emotion investment state of the national loophole. then they then moved boulders and people could stop moving freely from one country to another country. and when they added to that, they stated how monday immigrants have monday they had to take, and then make the next step and you start moving to the majority vote and in the past,

you had a unanimous consent of all of the nations but once it moved to majority, a nation preference could be completely ignored. the majority ruled otherwise. that led to enormous national reaction. the most extreme expression of course is in britain. hungary, poland, and monday of the other bodies. yet we had an attempt to move the post national state and that went out building post national community. in my judgment. it cannot be done. i personally dream of a global community for now.

much of our business is having to be done on a national loophole. people take their national commitment very serious. my little anecdote on the lighter side, tony blair prime minister e divided the french and the german ambassador to dinner. the italian people we're offended. the other investor was included. the italian people, that is a kind of identification, soccer and hockey in our teams win, people feel elated personally. and when they lose they feel personally deflated. beyond that, people make major sacrifices for the nation. after the german unification, each german hundred billion

dollars each year for ten years. they said thank you but they were exploited. u.s. germans why did you do this. there german. that's all they need it. they are part of our tribe. for greeks, not on your live. let me put it more strongly, millions of people are wheeling to die for their country. but no one will die for the telephone company. so i think it shows you how strong national bonding can be. we have no choice now and we cannot move yet, i wish we could but nobody knows how. to transfer from the identity investment to the next loophole.

so we have to choose between bad nationalism are i'm going nationalism. rather than to give up and nationalism. that is what they all met when he said this love of country, and other countries. go to the dictionary you see two different definitions are nationalism. one is loving other people bad nationalism and for people to see independence. that's a i'm going nationalism. and historically, of course nationalism, great liberator. this only talked about morse of national liberation and empire slayers, latin america and eastern europe and over most of asia and africa, nations and people got together is nations. colonial powers.

then they got into the nazis, national socialism. nationalism is to fasten spaces. you should see patriarch nationalism on the soil. it is the respect the people may be quite a few fixed issues about the family. if there was kind of an argument and part of the community that you can do that went out family, and some you recall the movie, kramer against kramer. she had to leave her family in order to find it. to find yourself. later we learned, that he wanted an italian family might not want same gender families but we don't want to be edgy family

same thing now. we should not be edgy nationalism, you should fight for the right kind of things. try to think in the beginning, and virtually arrive with each other on our differences. and in a civil way, and remember our common god and goals. fraction vote, you'll still have to fix about. that is about what i can do for my introduction. it takes me like 200 pages but has i'm going news, forgive me for the people who who sell the book, i didn't want to make her name out of this. so i made it into an open source. means you can download the book for zero and i get zero profit but that's okay. i would much rather you read the book. please join me for a discussion.

[applause] [inaudible conversation] >> hi jennifer, the faculty he here. one of my heroes is albert hirschman, and he wrote about how one of the pillars of democracy is conflict. so what i'm hearing from you is very similar to that. of course the question is the quality of conflict and you described the kinds of qualifications or conflicts that would be more conducive to a democratic society. but you haven't had very much about how we move the needle from the kind of conflict we have now towards that more productive conflict. can you comment on that.

>> it is difficult not to quote. my favorite line in the book, and people ask me all the time, how to change america. i tell them and somewhat surprisingly, there is only one way. you have to have a social movement. if you look at it historically, but really major major major changes. i'm not talking about adopting a policy that major social change talk about the civilized moment, talk about women's rights movement, talk about the environmental movement, entire environmental movement, protection agencies. environmental protection laws. look at what is happening to the youtube movement. none of these movements achieved

all that we should have. symbolizes ready to go environmental is a long way to go. but they all made major changes. most interestingly, we do convince people they need to change and they accept the change and do because in their belief, the avenue moral obligation. see change on the policy on the government loophole like you forced busing, the get a lot of pushback and you can send her you can arrest people and they get changes there. i'm not denying it. you can write people but paying them a lot, but nothing compares to we do convince them that changes allied with the most profound values. that is what happens, to progressive movement. we need now in our chaotic

movement which make, that are members of one tribe and it has particular implications of policies. >> thank you for the presentation and for putting these issues on the table now. sort of drawing now again on the nature of how we dispute things. you can also look at it with zero sum game approach versus shared prosperity. the zero-sum game is very emotionally satisfying. for me to win, the other person has to lose. i think we see a lot of that now

with a populist movement. there has to be an other that we have to defeat. and i need to create maya community in order to defeat this other community which is challenging mine and we can't prosper together. there has to be an enemy. it's very emotionally satisfying. what is your arguing for is the very intellectually satisfying. that rationally if we work together, we can prosper together and we can build these ideals but when people are afraid, they don't work so rationally. they don't look at that. so right now, populist leaders are trying to keep the world on edge, and we fear change and how do you reconcile this challenge of the emotional satisfaction of identifying your group is

zero-sum defeating the other side, versus a left emotionally satisfying intellectual argument for an inclusive community. >> state department, christian views, very important issues. first of all, i would argue and i tried to express earlier, the people of a different emotional attachments. multiple identities, complex personalities. people come and asked them, argue against whatever. the u.s. them, are you an american. and they will see yes very strongly. in part, it is to 1 degree it can be kept in the defense of community, rather than calling the pros, because of the moment

of white trash. we need to invite conversation. it's one place to start. all members of the same time. that is part of it. second, there is indeed danger. it's exactly what the founding fathers wrote about so much is the monk. that is, democracy is supposed to have representation and layer between the masses and decision-making when there's going to be some cooling off. from deliberation and some give-and-take rather than staying immediate impulse. now we have social media, and the folks can reach it directly into people his homes. much more than they could even on regular television. short-circuit, the representative and quoting off

at this., people can cap into people his employed pulses. two answers to that. build a community, historically when people reacted to communi community, to democratic appeals. so when somebody called them to march against expires eight, then went on to the neighbors or the minister or black communities, the union leaders, and so on and so on. that process, after some kind of pushback, the democrats have agreed that it destroyed communities. massive fights. the last, maybe most important, and that is that the concept of self-government. we need and that is very one of the jobs of schools, and colleges, is the development.

exactly the difference between democratic citizen and one who cannot live in democracy. it cannot tolerate democracy. we learn to control our impulses. we all have impulses. so the difference between quote i'm going and bad people, is about people act on their impulse. and i'm going people have a filter. so when they feel that impulse starting in the chest, look i'm not staying that nobody ever left secular neighbors wife. if they have sufficient mechanisms in government, they can pause and see wait a minute. what is an information the nation and the future of the country. so what we are missing is especially civic education is been caught so much in schools

to it exists often doesn't deal with this kind of training for democracy but more dealing with other things. the right kind of education prepares them. . . . >> i agree that some values like patriotism, maybe even older stuff like honor kind of went

out of the fashion because they have been used for bad purposes. so, we could use patriotism could use other values, again, for positive impact but what i'm afraid of it's really easy to build up a positive value, positive patriotism and then turns bad again. how do we keep, for example, patriotism, the love 0 ones open country, of turning bad, being misused by nationalists, for example? >> we have no choice. it's not like we have three menus. we have bad national glimpse, good nationalism or globalism. that dog won't fight or may of whatever the image, won't hunt. it's a tug of war between those of who -- but the worst way to

fight that nationalism is by call figure globalism because that inflames the bad nationalists. the best way to take the wind of their sails is say i share with you the commitment, love of nation, but has to be communeity building but not hostile. in this new wave of bad nationalism, sweeps so many countries, you would think that it would be combined with nation unity, because nationalism supposedly puts everyone together for the nation and oddly enough in all the countries which turn nationalistic and turns hatred of immigrant and authoritarianism, also an

increasing fragmentation, which is not what you expect, and i think people realize, at least in their -- in people's nobeler moments look at britain issue don't think the average person says the country divide like crazy between three camps who increasingly hate each other, and that's what you want to see completely paralyzing government and bringing this trump into office, that's what you want to see if you're the nation. if you can tap in a sense that we have a commitment to our common but we don't use it for reconstruction, for serving the purposes which would benefit us all, which ennoble us all, they the only antidote we have to the, quote, bad nationalism. so not like we have choice.

and i'm not denying there's a danger of slippage but we don't have a choice. >> y sound like you think are people are innately tribal, and it just -- if a group of people, whether -- if they want to main their cultural identity, whether it's ethnic or racial in europe, they are being replaced in their homelands and in india and i guess turkey would be the religion, and i just don't understand why it's so horrible for victor and the diswants to keep his free country of terrorism, look at france and the streets of london and then israel is always the media

called the jewish state and the other issue is i don't see how you can have open borders when you have a welfare state. europe has much stronger welfare state than the united states. >> can you repeat. what but the welfare state? >> i don't believe you can appear open border hes with a welfare state. >> by open borders you mean people are free to move in and out at will? it's not something any nation at this moment well tolerate. the question whether it's good, beautiful, ugly, is a wonderful discussion for a seminar but if you care about a society, you may as well put gasoline on fire and so now you want more immigration, you want to triple immigration issue get you that,

want to quadruple is but the moment you say open borders the game is over. that's what happened in -- i don't think it was only a question of the welfare state. it's a question of national identity and people feel assaulted, and i must tell you, i went -- there's a commission in europe on racism and antisemitism, and the asked me to give a talk, and we started to talk kind of taliban -- i said, one thing i'd like to mention just to illustrate, if two roman or gypsy families could move next door my apartment, i would -- feel a little uncomfortable, and said, my god you can't say that. and the fact is that -- let me

give you another example. believe if you go to a movie or play, everybody should shut up. right? and the people start yacking, they think it's very bad form. you good a chinese opera and they come and talk and good and such, and you go to some our minority neighborhoods and they say, hey, baby girl and everybody participate, having a good time, and so it's just the -- have certain norms and when you get upset, needs time to adjust, and so what happened when you have mass immigration, from people from different cultures, it's not that they should stop it but you need to increase vastly the processes of helping the two sides to meet eachs a persons and become integrated. otherwise you create a sociological explosion and you

see all over europe. >> yeah. rather skeptical of a world of competing nation states ever getting beyond their notion of national self-interest to arrive at the sort of common -- competing nation states arriving at cooperation on a global level like you're proposing. i can imagine who other scenarios which i find more realistic. one is if the earth was attack bed extra territorials we would -- terese centrals we would come together put if one nation state could achieve global hegemony over all the other nation states, sore of a

roman empire, we would have a central that, world government, whatever you want to call it, that could pursue the role in interests. with we we had advance notice that aliens are coming and thaw are like in the bad movies, then we may get together. if you look at a threat of climate, it's quite serious and you could look at the carbon emission as a -- the kind of enemy which attack us all and has not sufficed to bring us together. it has to be a farely dramatic attack -- fairly dramatic attack but that could happen. i don't want to sit back and wait for that. the second is, yes, if one

country succeeded in dominating the world, but i must say that's again a very, very dark picture, and so the united states sometimes talks about its china attacking india, and i find -- it was mentioned earlier in the book about that. if you mention -- what happened if china wins, what are you going to do with india? going to rite -- absurd idea so the notion there be one nation which would dominate the world to the point it could rick today poll -- dictate poll is, what -- policies, what we need fall back is to remember that there are gains from international relations which are based on nation states. so it's not like you have to be all truistic in order for nations to come together in the world health organization, and work together to stop ebola.

so to be -- to see the different foreign policy has to be nation-centeredded doesn't mean national jim or does not go against aligns or treaties. -- alliances or treaties. he the sad fact is when you do it that way, it takes years to negotiate some of the most elementary arrangements and then the senate has to approve the treaty and doesn't. and so we can get quite a bit nato and such so i'm not saying nothing can be done so this old-fashioned international arrangements but unfortunately the amount of load we have to scare the amount of international governance we're building are complete lit out of step. the governance is lagging ever more behind.

economic and social development. let me add something here chase point frankly i hate to admit put karl marc -- marx made its pest. what happened in modernity is technological and economic forces have been unleashed and political and moral institutions are lagging behind, and the increasingly governing our lives and we keep trying catching up, and you can see this now with the facebook. facebook changed our social relationships but was no committee or congress or the u.n. which said, if you -- said, fine good, for it, make people glued to their computers instead of having a dinner conversation. it forces us to adopt and now we try desperately to find ways for this technology not to be

abused. a combination. so, you think the good policy is bad technology, nobody asked us. somebody built it and now states started using it and we all have to start adapting to it. so the face on a national and global level, ever more kind of magician assistant who protect free and now is dominating us and we cannot bring it back down or the jewish tradition, the dolems running free we can't get him to lie down. we most we can do for the time'ing, which is tragic, but sometimes he this being how to county offer you is too some things on the national stage and

interesting on the international level in the traditional way and hoping one day we will find ways to build a super national community. one more thing mere, some people talk but world of government. no psychological foot to stan on. can't even show it on paper. does a world government have one person and win rote and that mean india some china running the records. edition nation have one vote, lux. boring and china have the same weight? can't even solve the world government on paper, let alone implement it. so, our choices are, limited between love of nation, which support democratic institutions because you realize members of one community eave a destiny in the future, and the kind of soil

and blood nationalism which seeks to -- fragmentation. all the way over there. >> rich with the century found. wrote a biography of albert shanker, the teacher union leader and a lot of what you're saying toying has much in command with the way he viewed american identity and education in particular. i want to follow up on he earlier question how we instill this notion of american identity in our public schools? there was a meeting shanker was at where dozen of people were sitting round, governors and educators and someone asked what is the purpose of public school

and there was a long, walk war silence and then shanker said, it's to teach kids to read and write but more profoundly it's to teach kids what it means to be an american, and i wonder if there is war group of principals high school 0 elementary cool programs what what about the best step to take in order to teach kids what it means to be an american. >> well, basically the democratic muscle, like all 0 other muscles, needs training. you're not born with it. so, to the degree that we have game-playing, civic government and modern, united nations and such, these are examples where with allow the kids to make decisions in the classroom. these are all -- not lecturing but democracy will not get you very far. any all-time favorite anecdote

on that one. it's really a looking at -- many years ago when martin luther king jr. was shot, a third grade teacher in iowa was telling the kids about the evil of discrimination, and a third grader meant absolutely nothing to them. so she decided to play a game with. the it's a true story. she said during intermission, blue eyes and been hair have to stay the class, not be able to use the water fountain and all the other kids can do so. and the game was supposed to continue for two days, after one day, she had to stop it because the blond kids got depressed she felt she could not allow that to happen anymore, and then nbc got this classroom together 25 years later, it turns another all -- changed all their lives. all of them turn out to be in

some form of international service, so experience teaching cuts much deeper than lecturing, but to have to allow for it today in schools is to advise academics and that's the opposite direction. the other way is national service and national service acomplicated subject bus it's expensive but there's another way to do, and now as you getting closer to the end, let me tell you, the reason started a project which those of you who have your phones or tick notes go to place called the patriotic movement.org. the patriotic movement.org, and you see a website for those who want to express your patriotism and you can join us and we argued for civic education, volunteerary national service

and adults who want to learn english, immigrants and cannot find classes to learn english which is necessary not only for the economic integration, but for the social and political integration and want to see many more americans volunteer to teach english to immigrants in the process of getting to know them personally. some kind of statistics or even group. so, these are some of the devices. none of them are magic bullet us but steps you can take. i think you been awfully, awfully patient so this comes to the point i should thank you for your patience. one more question. there you good. two more questions, very good. last two questions. >> thank you for coming and giving such a great talk. one of the most -- >> can you talk louder.

>> one of the mose prolific special political science arguments was the end of history and the last man thesis. a lot has been made of the end of history because of the broad reaching implication for international order but i think what applies to your argument here is the last man argument the more philosophical dim mention which talks but the breakdown of community stemming from the over rationalization of life and isolation and the people's desire for recognition not being fulfilled and you talk about what i would call top-down effects or top-down forces which are breaking down a commune such as trade and the european union, and talk bottom are up factor. i wonder how you reconcile the two different approaches causing the same result. >> can you ask the young lady --

>> thank you. i'm with -- faculty near political science in the elliott school. just wonder if you had any thoughts on the relationship between national scale social movements and transnational social movements and part of the thinking there is just seems like you are sort of sympathetic with the idea that we want to have some sense of goal community or maybe that would be desirable but you worry it's not feasible, and i guess i wonder if the sort of focus on national patriotism might be trading off with kind of potential to build more sort of transnational communities, really, communities solidarity. so just curious. >> americanan slaughter wrote other book about this informal ngo kind of international networks, and she put a lot of weight in terms of what they can

carry, but examined it i found it -- there's absolutely wonderful things like a doctor without borders, and for my viewpoint, saving one life is a wonderful thing. but the truth be told is, carry all together surprising little wait and scratch the surface, you find that in the end rely on the state. what happens in order for ngos to go out in the countryside in afghanistan, they need a -- military to protect them. what goes on in the united states and the ngoses the reimburse. hoff the federal government and even whatever they do, which is wonderful but limited, is in the end reflection of the state. the state is no longer willing -- they can deliver this. it's not a question that i wanted to, i would make the

ngos take over and have this wonderful global community and because after bad guy, i feel he is just the -- as to the top-down it's a good point. i'll leave it for a whole other discussion and i didn't -- a whole book called the spirit of community, how to do it from top-up and clearly very clear procedures how to rebuild communities. it was things such as, for instance, even the way of architecture. the way communes are designed. makes antique. if you get together a pool. where thank you put the mail boxes, how wide her to sidewalk, the approach on the back or front makes a ditches. promenade. public parks, all community builders. they are in new york city, often block parties, so many devices

to build communities which are bottom-up. so, i love to hear more from you about it. e-mail, fox, pigeon mail or any other way. thank you for joining me today. [applause] >> now on c-span2 2's booktv more television for serious readers. the next book we want to talk about on booktv