antwon rose jr's mother. son two weeks ago. there are marginal ways we have gotten better as a country in dealing with this phenomenon. we come more honest in dealing with this phenomenon but those marginal improvements are no consolation a to the mother ofntwon rose jr today. -- antwon >> next, the foreign affairs executive editor on the dominant policy things today. it is 30 minutes. what is the grand foreign policy narrative of our current times? that is the question foreign affairs magazine sought to answer in its latest edition. thekurtz phelan is magazine's executive editor. why go through this exercise and

why offer up six different views of the world rather than focusing on just one? as we all know we live in an interesting turbulent time. we are all fairly caught up in the day-to-day of the new cycle. a tweet from president trump or the latest back and forth about nato or the g7, the singapore summit. we wanted to force ourselves and our readers and authors to step and trym the day-to-day to give us a theory or narrative of thisat exactly all means. what it adds up to. another way of saying what are we going to be reading about in history books 200 years from now and what will be a footnote. it's not always exactly what we think. we wanted to say there are different ways of connecting the different dots of this reality. different ways of explaining what is happening. each one of those stories, each one of the world we are living in, gives a different sense of which forces really matter.

recede into the background as we move forward. host: those lenses foreign affairs focuses on, the realist worldview, the liberal world, the tribal world, the marxist world, the tech world and the warming world. the six different columns. did you pick writers for each of these worldviews or did you let them come up with the worldview they defend in each one of these columns? guest: we had a sense of the different lenses we wanted our authors to use. we started with two basic international theories and we started there. we look at interesting authors who had different ways of realities. tribalism and the forces of tribalism which a lot of people tend to discount inform policy and domestic politics.

talk about the ways in which the warming of the planet is going to be the main story of our time . kind of interesting lenses that may not be obvious to those who work in the foreign policy world , may be the grand story of this era. may explain what is happening better than traditional theories . with marxism this is not something people in the foreign policy world tend to give a lot of stock to. our sense was, a way to look at mark's the analyst, not the prescriber and he does tell a story that does map onto the reality as well. host: for those of us not in the foreign policy world start on those traditional views. the realist view though liberal worldview. explain what those are in the difference between the two.

guest: realism is the most traditional way of seeing the world. what has idea is that always driven history, global politics, is rivalry between great powers. that was true 200 years ago. it was true a millennia ago and it's true today. what is going to matter is the competition between the united states and china. a lot of us in the united states might have been lulled into thinking they unipolar moment would last forever. that american hegemony would never go away. what we seeing is rivalry between power centers and what is going to drive the course of events is geography and relative power. that is what really matters. liberalism looks at institutions and rules and ways of cooperating. that has been a centerpiece of american foreign-policy for several decades. the liberal international order people in the foreign policy world talk about all the time. it's a moment when that order looks like it is under stress.

liberalism and authoritarianism and a lack of cooperation in trade wars. the system will survive because the only way to address the common problems on the globe. they see this as a moment when the order will be tested. when we look back 20 years from now we will see this as a time when the liberal order proved its value. those are more traditional ways of looking at the world. -- when youtral to read all of these side-by-side, each one connects the dots. they point to different futures. host: staying on the liberal order, what is the main institution that makes up the liberal world order? guest: everything from the united nations and nato to our alliances. all the different forms of

cooperation. the different agreements between different nations. some of those are more traditional. some of them are more ad hoc and informal. they add up to a system of cooperation and rules and norms, if you subscribe to the theory, really do govern the way different governments and nations interact with one another. host: want to invite viewers to interact with us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 we are joined by dan kurtz phelan of foreign affairs. i want you to focus on that tribal view for a second. when people hear that they may think of something more for third world countries. chua looks aty domestic politics today she does not seen the lines of class or race driving events and

explaining the fault lines in politics or foreign policies. she sees tribal affiliation. looking back over the sweep of history she sees identification with our group as the key force driving everything from what's happening in afghanistan or in iraq but also it's happening in american politics today. not always explained by how policy -- identification with people like them. there is sometimes an economic element to that. sometimes a racial element. it goes beyond to something more essential that has been driving human events for thousands of years. host: we have not touched on the tech world too much yet. guest: this is a great piece by kevin drum. he notes that if we were talking about -- if we look back at the 19th century we would not focus on -- what might've been in the headlines, what was going on

with grover cleveland or chester arthur. at the latterack part of the 19th century we go back 150 years or so. we will talk about the steam engine and electricity and germ theory and all the things that drove fundamental and political change. the forcesargues that are going to matter going forward are artificial intelligence. the ongoing digital revolution. he believes we have not seen the beginning of these effects on politics and economics and geopolitics and thinks 50 years or 100 years from now that would be the essential change talk about. host: we want to hear from our viewers. is it the realist world, the liberal world, tribal worldview, marxist, a tech world, or a warming world. how would you define foreign policy?michael is a forced up first. turn down your television and

listen through your phone. caller: i'm on mute on tv. host: go for it. caller: i have a bit of a problem. i'm a democrat. i think i'm going to switch to independent. the gentleman was asking what kind of world i live in. i live in an american world. i have all of these people that are protesting. a proximally 2000 hispanic children put into a safe place after being drug across the witht with renta -- rattlesnakes and heat because their parents broke the law. i did research and in this country alone i don't know if people are aware of this there's almost half a million american children in foster care that were taken away from their american families because they committed a crime. why aren't they protesting that? guest: this is actually a great

example -- an interesting example in that you can take everything we are seeing with the migration situation and the political debates about it and really fit it into almost any one of these different worldviews. you could talk about it in light of climate change in the way that drought conditions and environmental conditions are driving migration, both in the united states but also in europe where recent migration is a controversial issue. you can look at it in light of the competition between the united states and china. stephen tok and makes point demographics will be a central force in great power rivalry going forward. he would see the fact that the united states is an attractive destination for immigrants has a huge advantage in that rivalry in that it gives us the hope of staying young and having the young of pop -- a young population even as china starts

to get old before it gets rich. you can play that out across technology. automation is causing a lot of economic distress and driving a lot of reaction to the migrants. in each one of these cases, you can take a fact like that, something that feels like a fundamental reality now and it to be part of a different narrative. a different theory can explain it. depending on which one of those series is most persuasive it can take you to a different future. it explains why we are where we are but also explains where we are going. anyone of these worlds is consistent with what is happening now. host: dan kurtz phelan is with us. executive editor at foreign affairs. princely served as a member of the secretary of state's policy planning staff from 2010 to 2012. also a senior editor at foreign affairs before that. also the author of the china mission.

that was published in april of this year. taking calls and questions this morning. michael is in nevada, line for independents. caller: good morning. i'm shocked at the complicated reasons and pigeonholed subject answers this gentleman has four causes for war. it's simple and he does not get it. it's for money. for gold. .ook throughout history the roman empire, the british empire, the american empire. it's not about marxism, it's not about tech. i don't understand a thing this man is saying it's about wealth. let me give you a final example, why we start wars. 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 were from saudi arabia.

we know saudi arabia plan the 9/11 attacks. we know the saudi's finance the 9/11 attacks and we go to iraq. reason, saudi arabia has wealth. they have the oil and we are affiliated with them. it's that simple. all this other nonsense is up you sick -- host: do we know those things about 9/11 -- guest: so to focus on the broader point, i think there is a piece in this package that would very much agree with , karl marx. he focused on the way that the search for resources internationally drove international conflict area i would point the reader to marxist world, which is not so much about marxist systems as we've seen them develop in the 20th century, but much more

about the analysis that underpins them that marx develops in the 19th century. that really did focus on the ways that wealth drove these events. you can extend that analysis into present and that can what is happening in advanced democracies and the ways inequalities have been growing but also what dries foreign-policy behavior internationally. i am not picking between different worlds, but if he does go and read this marxist world peace i think he would find a lot to agree with. host: it is in the july august edition of foreign affairs. which world are we living in? in clinton massachusetts, line for democrats. good morning. caller: my question is on the various worldviews. which would best handle the high point in the world? the five islands that are off the west coast of north korea that are not part of the

armistice that would be hard to defend. south china sea where the two main islands are by taiwan, or by calling the occupation of -- is thatinvasion wise? of course there is the palestinian issue. we don't talk about some of these other hotspots and maybe there are more. what worldview is best in dealing with these hotspots that can trigger a war whether it is for wealth or ego or just the pleasure of war? phelan -- dan kurtz phelan? guest: an interesting set of foreign-policy issues and potential conflicts the caller raises. i would point to the first two pieces in the package on realism and liberalism. they both explain -- they both can account for why there is tension over these different

hotspots the caller put it. what happens from here is different in realist world and liberal world. in realist world, this is a natural outgrowth of great power rivalry. very producible and natural that the united states and china would have tension over these islands that china would want a sphere of influence over islands that are near its coastline and that china's neighbors would seek out help to push back and seek help from the united states . stephen -- would see that and say tensions are going to grow and exactly how that turns out whether it develops into war or some kind of other arrangement will depend on the power and geography more than anything else. liberal world will look at that conflict and say we've developed

over the course of the last several decades lots of rules and institutions about how you deal with those kinds of disputes. liberalism does not assume that there are no conflicts or tensions but it says we have ways of dealing with them short of war. 20 years from now if there is a code of conduct about how nations behave in the south china sea bank that constrains chinese behavior but is considered except will buy china that would be a vindication of liberalism. i would point to those articles. you can look at each of the disputes the caller mentioned and see a persuasive explanation for why they are happening. but also point to different potential futures. different ways situations developed depending on which of these theories you find most persuasive. host: to texas. margaret is an independent. caller: good morning to you. i probably would fit more into the liberal, but i think some of

these -- my main interest, i am 90 years old by the way, my main interest is in the environment. unless we have a sustainable world to live in, what does it matter about all of these other things. i probablyi believe would fit in the liberal but i believe we have to work together. no longer is the nationstate the most important thing. joining -- probably globalism. it is that we have to think in global terms. the terrific advancement of artificial intelligence -- i'm one of these people to drive in all electric car. i'm very concerned about what is happening. of theseem to be unaware

particular its their breathing in, not just carbon dioxide. they make people ill. i think in that sense i think we should cooperating globally on antiwar. march against the war in vietnam. i was in the civil rights movement, as old as i am. i marched against the war in vietnam and i feel there are alternatives to going to war. host: thanks for the call. giving us a chance to talk about several different worlds. why don't we focus on the warming world through the lens of recall? guest: it is a great set of insights. thearet, the author of warming world is joshua busby. i recommend his piece. the point that he makes is that

warming, the fact of climate change, will define our future, whether we deal with it adequately. he sees a future of rising sea levels and greater drought. wars over resources. that is if we do not deal with climate change. he sketches out a different scenario. if we deal with it, if we come together between businesses and government and individuals and really rise to the challenge and managed to avert some of the most catastrophic outcomes with climate change, in part through some of the ways you just mentioned, even that is going to reshape global politics and societies. what happens 50 years from now if our societies and our government and businesses really have managed to address climate will change too the way politics, businesses and societies work. a pessimistic scenario and an optimistic scenario both of which center on the forces of

climate change. i would extend that point to other pieces. some of these sound like pessimistic pieces some of them sound more optimistic. what was surprising to us at foreign affairs as we looked at the pieces, even some of the more -- the scenarios that focus on what we think of as darker forces, actually have potentially optimistic outcomes. if you look at realism, it does not necessarily mean we are going to end up in another world war in the course of the next few decades. it does mean the forces of competition are really going to determine how the world moves forward. with warming world as professor busbee points out, it's going to change the world whether or not we deal with it. there is an optimistic outcome at a more pessimistic one. host: focusing on one of the optimistic outcomes in the piece can you explain his theory on why the u.s. pulling out of the paris climate change agreement might actually create more redundant systems within the u.s. to deal with climate change

. guest: a really interesting point that you raise that is made in the piece. paris was designed when it was passed -- when it was finalized years ago, to bring in a broader base of actors. it was not just governments doing things governments could do but making more flexible commitments that involved lots of other players. what has happened over the course of the last few years is that businesses have made decisions about use of energy. states and cities are important players when it comes to addressing climate change and reducing energy use. that washington is not taking the lead on this issue really shifts the focus of activity to businesses, to state governments. rise to theem occasion as some people think strengthenthat will

global efforts because it will be broader based the national governments. it will reshape the way some of these issues are dealt with domestically. that will reshape politics. host: burlington, north carolina is next. line for democrats. demetria. caller: i believe this is a money world. no one is actually paying attention to what the poor goes through. it is only about the wealthy. the ones who have money were able to provide for their families and do things for their families without no worry. when the poor is just working paycheck and its ak and struggle. i'm a single mother and i am struggling. i live under government assistance but if i go and get a good job, good paying job, it takes majority of my paycheck and that just leaves

me a little bit of money to be able to pay utilities. to me i feel as if it's all a money world. there is no help in between there is no help with love, no help with going different places or being able to come off of government assistance because no one wants to be on government assistance forever. with the hispanics and other foreign countries there's going through the things they're going their noserica has too much in other countries instead of focusing on their own country. guest: again i would point to a couple of pieces in the package that i think would really speak to the reality and experience demetrio mentions the first is marxist world if you go back to calm arts is writing in the 19th century he would say that this

is a kind of inevitable outgrowth of advanced capitalism and that all of this is predictable that the declining share of power for labor growing inequality, the increasing struggles of a large part of labor force is in another double development. what is interesting about the piece and the issue is that does not have an obvious political solution what we think of as a marxist political economic system is not necessarily the only way to deal with that. were developments predicted long time ago in some ways. i would point to liberal world. i should say liberalism in a foreign policy context does not mean what we think of when we say liberal on a domestic political context is about a pragmatism and a institution that does not map onto political debates. talk about the ways in which the liberal system help address some of the issues demetria raised

when the liberal order was really -- through the decades in the middle of the 20th century where the and edit states a lot more to address these issues. that has decayed in recent years in a way that they see having implications for global politics as well. host: is there a worldview that you most agree with between realist, liberal, tribal, marxist, tech, warming? i am a foreign-policy guy in that means i was much more attuned to realist world and liberal world but what was fascinating to all of us as the pieces came in, we started to edit them. you can read each one of them and you can sit with them side-by-side and each one does tell a persuasive story of the you canwe are living find that persuasive and move on to tribal world or tech world and see that as equally persuasive explanation of reality.

in some ways it's an unsettling reading experience that does sort of up and your assumptions about how the world works. about tweets it's not about trump, it's not about the political controversy of the moment. it is a way to force ourselves and our readers to step back and get a sense of the broader landscape. perfect summer reading because it was escapist in its own way. host: time for one or two more phone callshost:. janice is on the line for democrats. caller: hello. phelan. i'm probably a realist and i believe we are living in a shrinking world of too many people in need of work, food water education, training health, clothing and housing many less military war and more service military.

females along with males need to enter a draft for a service military. to serve if they are not employed or enrolled in more schooling. also, we need sensible cost control. government as we know it is falling apart because of corruption. we don't have a democracy. a electoral college is a joke. thank you. guest: i would ask the point you to liberal world. the starting point for liberal international relations analysis is that the world is shrinking and we are growing more interdependent. in an interdependent world you need ways of addressing common problems. you need ways of mediating disputes that you would not have had a few hundred years ago when societies felt more for a part than they do now.

if you look at a problem like climate change or nuclear weapons you can't just deal with those on a country by country weapons you can't just deal with those on a country by country basis. you really do need -- that can really address the problems of the shrinking world. i think there's a lot in the little world that would address some of those -- the liberal world that would address those issues. we talked a lot in this country about the breakdown of a national identity. we have a piece coming in our next issue to preview that a bit which talks about some of the identity issues and talks about the ways in which national service could really create an american identity transcends the tribal differences amy chua writes about in her piece in the issue. host: brandon in florida, line for independent. caller: i wanted to touch on the canadian prime minister do you

think it is right for him to call the president out? security.onal he made that argument. 22 out of even make 208i believe that was. i was wanting to hear your thoughts about that. we are right there by them as our neighbors. guest: we are in a moment where a had a g-7 meeting in canada few weeks ago that ended badly. and it in acrimony for reasons the caller hinted at. we had a nato summit in europe next week i believe. july 11 and 12. these issues are front and center. two parts here.

one is the issue of how much different countries are spending on their own national defense. it is not that they pay into a nato budget. they're committed to spending more on their own national defense as part of the nato alliance. this is something that administrations of both parties have been focused on for some time. something the obama administration talks about. the question is how much do you value the broader alliance? do you think the existence of this broader alliance is really essential, not just to our security, not just to our partners security, but also to stability in the world. having these kinds of alliance structures helps reduce conflict. -- i think when prime minister trudeau of canada talks about, says some of what he says about trump and to trump

, it is about his sense of preserving that order is important to canada but also to united states and the world more broadly. getting at that liberal debate in that exchange. that is not what they talk about. you can see the theories that underpins some of these attitudes. , partback to the package of what is really interesting is you are seeing the worldviews that underpin the debates of the day we don't often talk about these when we are consumed with the headlines and the back and forth. this really is what is fundamentally driving these disputes. host: the package is called which world are we living in. the july august edition of foreign affairs. dan kurtz phelan is the executive editor. appreciate y >> c-span's "washington journal ," live every day with news and policy impresses dust policy

issues that impacted. cherry jeffrey discusses whether the american dream is still attainable. than the washington post -- discusses challenges facing american democracy. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal." join the discussion. >> mexican ambassador geronimo gutierrez fernandez discussed current relations with the united states after sunday's presidential election. topics included future nafta negotiations and u.s. mexico border security issues. the hudson institute hosted this 50-minute event. [indiscernible]