of myth from the frontier to the border wall and the mind of america. on sunday our live coverage continues starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern with journalist dave cullen and his book parkland, birth of a movement. news week national political correspondent nina burly with the book golden handcuffs. the secret history of trump's women and author karen piper with her book, a girl's guide to missiles. growing up in america's secret desert. watch our live coverage of the 11th annual tucson festival of books on c-span2. go to the website of "the wall street journal," the headline, trump's north korea ends nuclear summit without agreement. the lead author is jonathan chang who joins us on the phone from seoul. he's the bureau chief and works for "the wall street journal" jonathan cheng, good morning.

>> hi. >> thank you for joining us. can you describe the relations between the two countries. is there any animosity between these events or do you think this will lead to more conversations of the peaceful nature in the future? >> it's really hard to say because we only have one side of the story so far and that's president trump's. we haven't heard from north korea yet and the north korean state media. they haven't weighed in yet and they haven't given us an interview or anything, so we really don't know, but if you take it from president trump's mouth things ended with a disagreement, but the way he portrayed it it was like a disagreement between friends. they couldn't quite get their interest on the same page, but they ended with a handshake and a smile and sarah sanders posted the final handshake between the two men and you can see a big grin on kim's face. you know, that's really the case then perhaps this was just a momentary setback and maybe it

was the art of the deal where you need the one side to walk away and help kick off a new round, but of course, it also does show that donald trump's style of negotiations is different from previous presidents with a topdown approach and they finally sit down to meet that they're actually quite fall apart. so it's just a question of how far apart they are. we don't really know that yet. >> with that in mind what happens now as far as negotiations? >> i think what happens is we get pompeo for a special representative of north korea trying to get, you know, the channels going again and trying to figure out what went wrong and trying to figure out a way forward and perhaps we end up looking like a traditional president where we've had the lower channels ironing out early issues here and trying to get on roughly in the same page before we get to the summit level where you have the big leaders

involved. >> we saw south korea play a big part in the lead-up to the summits. do they continue to have a role in this process? >> well, they got on the phone, and the president of south korea on air force one as he was flying off from hanoi and according to the readout that we've gotten from the south korean side they asked to take a more of a lead role in keeping things going and that's definitely something that's in moon's interest if in the dna he supports engagement and he wants to see north korea talking to the rest of the world and in particular the u.s. and that's something that we can expect him to really, you know, be very enthuse university enthusiastic about and what we see in hanoi underscores how much, you know, there really is a real difference in policy, and a real difference in pacing scheduling and what both sides want. so those are things that no one,

not the south korean president can resolve on his own. >> when we hear the president talk about this idea of kim jong-un with the denuclearization in exchange for sanctions, what's the level of trust or do you think their face value is there a reality to that? >> well, you know, i do think that sanctions obviously have been, you know, this has been a big demand for north korea. we don't know how much they're hurting from it. we've done reporting that they're not too hurt from it, but of course, at the same time they're making it a central issue and so, you know, i think the disagreement over sanctions and we get down to really a question of trust and what they would say they're really friends and if they're not going to be hostile towards us, then we need you to stop trying to hurt us economically and destroy us that way. so there are many layers to this and ultimately it does come down

to trust and ultimately it does come down to whether or not, you know, the u.s. has gotten enough leverage out of this pressure campaign. >> jonathan cheng who joins us with the role of the wall street journal's seoul bureau chief talking about north korea and the united states summit ending the day with the agreement. mr. cheng, thanks for your time this morning. >> my pleasure. a live picture from capitol hill as members of the house judiciary subcommittee are gathering for a hearing on the 1976 national emergencies act. president trump using that law to try to build a wall on the southern border with money that congress had appropriated for the military. the hearing as we understand going to start a little bit later than expected and members of the committee are in the house chamber now casting votes on reducing gun violence. you can watch those votes as they take place on c-span on our companion network c-span.

while we have a couple of moments we will watch other programming and bring you back to live coverage here on c-span3.

>> again, we are waiting for the start of the house judiciary subcommittee hearing on the 1976 national emergencies act. president trump is attempting to use that law to try to build a wall on the southern border with money that congress had appropriated for the military. the hearing is starting a little bit later than expected as members are over in the house chamber. they have been working on gun

anti-violence legislation, and they have apparently just approved a bill that would expand the amount of time under which a background check should take place from three days to 20 days. you can watch it live on our companion network c-span. it will be a couple of minutes before the hearing starts. in the meantime we'll hear conversation from this morning's "washington journal." for today's spotlight on magazine segment we have foreign affairs contributor andreas zimmer talking about his article why nationalism works and why it isn't going away. good morning. >> so first of all, define for us what nationalism is and tell us the history of that term. >> well, nationalism is a political ideology, and it basically asks for two simple things. one that those are who are ruling a country and those who

are ruled come from the same community, that they share a historical origin and that they share a future political destiny and the second thing that nationalism asks for is that they rule in the interest of the majority of the population. nationalism is opposed to, for example on nationalism where kings rule because their father have ruled and their grandfather had ruled such as in saudi arabia, today, for example. it's also post-colonialism ruled by foreign elites and the ruling over nigerians and indians and so on, and it's also opposed to theocracies and the rule in the name of god, and so nationalism has a long history immersed in the american and french revolutions and traveled all around the world and it has

become the dominant principle on which the whole state system on a global scale actually rests today. so how did the word get such a national context especially here in the united states it's never a positive thing right now. how do we get a negative connotation to that word? >> i think especially here in the u.s. nationalism became with the right after the second world war when the u.s. and others who won the war against the nazi regime came to nationalism with right-wing fascists and ideology, but historically speaking, there were lots of left-wing even communist movements around the world that were fiercely nationalists and if you look around the world there are left-wing movements

that are staunchly nationalists as well as there are right-wing movements, and i think nationalism as such, if you take a little bit of a distance from the currency policy debates in the u.s. and elsewhere, nationalism is actually not exclusively and historically not at all exclusively a right-wing ideology. most of the anti-colonial movements, for example, in the global south were communist movements and they were opposing colonial rule. >> now what are some of the benefits of the nationalism that you're talking about for countries that have people who are really invested in that country, and the country's government and what are the benefits of that? >> well, nationalism is also a political principle of equalities or all members of the nations should be equal from

each other and there should be no further divisions either of race or other kind of status distinctions. so nationalism, historically speaking is a liberal ideology and has married and entered a union with liberal ideology. so democracies and the principle of equality and all of these things have been pushed by nationalist movements in the 19 and 20th century and then later on, nationalism is the underpinning of the development of welfare states including here in the u.s. so the idea that citizens should have some kind of solidarity with each other even if they don't know each other and even if they're perfect strangers and the democracy and the equality before the law and the development of welfare states have been greatly enhanced by the idea of nation as a community of shared, historical

origins and political destiny. >> in your article you talk about countries that you found have more nationalism than others. can you explain why some countries exhibit more pride in their country and their government than others? >> in my view, pride in the country comes from inclusionary coalition and if you have a ruling coalition and a governing coalition that represents minorities and majorities alike and the encompassing boundary of the nation and individual citizens will identify more with the country. if you have a country that is divided along asracial or ethni lines and majorities that are excluded from the governing coalition and are not represented of the core of the power structure then they will not identify with the national

narrative and they will feel excluded from it and they're less proud of their country and their nation. >> let me read from your article that speaks directly to that. the more passing the networks, the more they'll embrace the nation as a community of shared solidarity and political destiny. conversely, groups that systematically excluded from these networks will develop their own separate identities, often can defined, and identify less with that happening. and it doesn't have the ability to participate in the country's power and therefore identify with a smaller group and not the country. >> that was the case for the u.s. as well and african-americans were

completely excluded from any level of political power and it was a separate identity as well and if you look around the world there is a range of governments where -- or countries where historically large groups have not participated in government. in syria, for example, the country is ruled by a very small ethnic minority and the vast majority over 80% of the population is not integrated in the power structure, in the military and the secret services and the cabinet and the bureaucracy and correspondingly, these groups develop their own alternative vision of how the country should be governed. they identify less with the national community and more with their own excluded,

discriminated against communities. ? . >> so it seems like the main thought behind your article is if citizens are able to participate in their government they feel more nationalistic pride in their government, but if they don't have power and they are able to participate in their government, they don't have that same feeling of pride from their country and that government. am i understanding that correctly? >> yeah. absolutely. >> you could say, inclusion identification and the opposite is true, as well. >> was that some >> let's have some viewers join in the conversation. republicans you can call 202-748-8001. democrats 748-8000. independents 748-8002 and once again, we are always reading on social media, on

twitter @c-spanwj and facebook at facebook.com/fans. we'll start with derek calling from lakeland, minnesota, on the independent line. good morning. >> good morning, america. good morning, c-span. i have a quick question and then i'll make a comment. is your guest -- what country is he a citizen of first and foremost? >> well, i'm a citizen of the u.s. and i'm also a citizen of switzerland where i grew up. >> okay. great. >> all right. you said nationalism is political. it is not, it is a fact and just where you're born and where you're a citizen of. now, i don't understand why as someone who professes themselves as a scholar would be associated with the counsel on foreign relation. you created the cia, which from basically from world war ii on 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 what would i say, this chaos, fear, intimidation and secrecy and that is what makes people not want to be involved in their national, political, civic duty because the control on the levers are not being produced by we, the people. >> go ahead and respond, professor. >> you know, the counsel on foreign relations is basically a club and there are people discussing things and it brings people of the new york business community with people from the u.n. who are here during the general assembly and it connects this new york community foreign policy and the interested community with washington, d.c., and i don't want to add too much

power to it and they're made in washington, d.c. in the white house, the pentagon and the national security staff and so on and not by the council on foreign relations, but you know, there's -- as everything, there is a polarized opinion landscape now 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 see it in a much, much more positive light than you do, but for a lot of people the historical role of the u.s. and the official way of reading things and fighting against other kinds of global dangers is actually a source of great pride for them. so i think -- actually, for the majority of citizens of the u.s., the history of foreign

policy involvement and its role of the global leader and someone that has created the liberal order after the second world war is a considerable source of pride and americans are actually speaking to citizens of other countries quite extraordinarily proud of their country. >> now, one of the things we haven't talked about yet is how you actually did your research to come to these conclusions on how nationalism is affected and affected in different countries. how are you able to come up with these conclusions that you have in this article? >> well, the article is based on three different books that i wrote. so i kind of summarized the methods and the data that i used in these three books, but i talked about before, jesse, about a very specific aspect is that political inclusion reduces national identification so that

was based on a series of surveys where people asked how they are with countries that i assembled and it was the survey with 123 countries and then i looked at the political power structures in all of these countries and the ethnic and racial power structure and then related the two together to show that more inclusionary coalition or government are those who are citizens that are much more proud of their country. >> many on the judiciary constitution of civil rights and civil liberties and the democrats are in the majority and the democrats are named once again forever shall be will come to order. without objection the chair authorizes the subcommittee, welcome to everyone to today's hearing on the national emergencies act of 1976. i will now recognize myself for