live campaign 2020 coverage continues monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, andrew yang in new hampshire and tuesday at 11:00 a.m. eastern, senator elizabeth orne in austin. watch the presidential candidates live on c-span, online and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. the final day of our "washington journal authors week series, where we have featured authors from across the political spectrum. is the editoray of national review magazine, author of the book "the case for nationalism." how it made us powerful, united, and free. , author of the book "the case for nationalism." you write that almost everyone has an opinion of nationalism without knowing what it is. a lot of people think patriotism is the appropriate word for everything good about national feeling or national

loyalty and nationalism is the word for everything bad about it. that is not the correct way to look at it or the correct definition if you want to get technical. comes from a latin word, same as patriarchy. loyalty to your own. nationally is a more specific doctrine that the same people united by common history and a ammon language should govern distinct territory. in a nutshell, that is nationalism. that we should be independent and self-governing. of the that the root american revolution, the insight that we have our own rights and claims and should be a part of our own british empire. runs throughout exam -- al is in a hamilton, fdr, and reagan

as well. a couple key projects. one is that we should have a strong capable national government. hamilton in washington believe the national government will collapse and discredit the whole american project at the outset unless it is stronger and more capable. limited is a well -- as well. we should have a strong military, especially a navy, during important hamiltonian projects. we should extend territorial assimilate should immigrants into our culture and in the 20th century, a major nationalist project that was a threat to poor and policy, republicans and democrats, that we should support the creation of the international system that respects the sovereignty of other hopefully democratic nations abroad.

host: who gets to decide what is in that definition? you named several specific projects. guest: this is the hamiltonian tradition. you can have an argument about what should and should not be in and out. are very important and we should protect them. policy istest for any that, does it serve the interests of our nation and our people that they mean more to us than nations around the world. host: you make a distinction between american and civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism. what do those terms mean? is usedivic nationalism for another word for patriotism, quality of citizenship and things of that nature. ethnic natural -- nationalism is

the belief that a certain race over andshould govern .bove any other ethnicities american nationalism ministry just civicper than nationalism. though that is a key part of the american project. higher and above ethnic nationalism. white nationalism is a contradiction in terms. the beauty of the nation is it represents a loyalty up and or sect or religion or partisanship. rich lowry, author of the book "the case for nationalism." it is our topic of conversation in our final installment of "washington journal."

.epublicans (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. thent to talk about what criteria for citizenship in this country has to say about how we see ourselves. the criterion for citizenship in the united states is not an ,ttachment to a set of ideas this standard enlightened by some standards but also speaks to a deep belief, such that it confers extraordinary privileges to those born here. implies the nation does not choose us and we do not choose it. guest: this is a key insight of nationalism, that we all have a sense of belonging that most of us do not choose. a lot of people choose to come here but most of us do not and we are born here.

we are loyal to the country as a deep and abiding connection that goes above and beyond choice. it goes to me how important buture is in this country goes back to the bible, where we get the idea we are a chosen people or almost chosen people, as lincoln put it more modestly. and that the first covenant in american history, every town and church founded on this continent thereafter is the product of a covenant. is the u.s.ortant constitution. host: what are other covenants we should look back to? guest: the basic idea comes from the old testament. it is interesting because it

limit on god, of that if you fulfill your obligations to him, he has obligations to you. in the this reflected constitution which does not just create national power, but also limits national power. host: joe is up first out of connecticut, a republican. the book is "the case for nationalism." rich lowry is here. caller: i just want to say i 'stally support rich lowry idea in his book and of course the biblical foundations and so on. , see so much in this country especially under the obama administration, and wanted to go contrary to that. wanting to bring in a not --

other countries and their laws and so on. whole concept of people, for example, islamic people who would like to bring let's say sharia law into the country. we have a history and it is sad about the american people in and especially students. i taught at a community college and found so many students were andtitutionally ignorant biblically ignorant. i will give you one case and then i will let it go. been on trial in this impeachment thing. that he took at

and exposed them, talking about joe biden. the truth is when you look at the constitution and you look at the second article which governs and when you look at that third section of article two, you find out there is a take care clause and the forident is responsible making sure the laws of the land are upheld. this is nationalism. you brought up a lot of topics. guest: the basic premise of the is thatcon -- comments our laws should govern us and no laws should. this gets to the reason why empires have never been democratic.

national --the most natural form of organization to that we sense of unity all can live together under the same set of rules and laws. you have various peoples and nations and part of a larger correct -- collection. the culture will be dominant in the language will be dominant. empire willin the like this. they will bristle against it. as long as there is enough course of power, it will hold of the -- together. soviet empire in the 20 century fell apart, colonial empires reasonart all for this

people want to govern themselves and they should govern themselves. lower in the hierarchy of organization, you go to tribe or sect, but one with postcolonial states in the middle east and africa is that there was not a sense of national feeling, a sense of social trust, a sense of lee -- we. that is when democracy is able to work. organization is a nation. caller: this is a great segue for this question. you said american nationalism rises or somehow rises above ethnic nationalism.

he knowledge tell the underlying structure of the country was changing. is becoming a lot more brown and part of what our job was was to imbue people who came into the is this consistent with your view of nationalism and how you maintain a national democracy as opposed to changing an empire. it has been important throughout history that we assimilate immigrants. i think people look at the cliche that we are a nation of immigrants and believe we always had a high level of immigration. that is not true. immigration levels have gone up and down. andbargain is you come here

embrace our ideals and assimilate into the broader culture. that has been true throughout our history. this country can assimilate a lot of immigrants. i would like to sue the u.s. adopted system that is more dressed to do more of it of his us on skills rather than legal immigrants we are taking. i also want to see a robust culture of the simulation. one thing is we had an enormous wave of immigration. you had every elite institution concerned about a simulating immigrants. whether it was philanthropic organizations or schools.

historically high levels of immigration without that machinery or culture of the simulation, which worries me. do you think american nationalism is what president trump means when he says america first. ? guest: i do. i think it is an instinctual expression of the belief that we put our interests first. i think trump, when he is on the teleprompter, it is unassailable. some of the nationalistic statements he made the u.n. and the speech he gave, the best speech of his presidency, very nationalistic speech. all that is terrific. what should be the unifying potential an appeal of nationalism. inre is a sense we are all -- in this together. host: a review of your book in

the washington post. it seems part of a larger effort on the right to create an after-the-fact framework for trumpism to contort the president's impulses into a coherent worldview that can outlast him. a sort of rescue mission for the conservative movement. has ideals. does president trump give a damn? guest: on the right there has been a lot of backfilling since president trump got elected. usually when you have a major disruption in a political party, you see a movement building over time. when the new left took over the democrats in the 70's, this was a movement you could see on the

streets and various dissident leaders. trump comes out of nowhere. there has been an effort to andk through what he means what i attempted to do in the book, it is not a book about trump. it is a book occasioned by trump, where he has hit on an important factor in our politics and history that have been relatively neglected and often misunderstood. what i would like people to take away from my book is there's something to this nationalism that is deeper than trump and one trump is gone one way or the other, as the republican party should not turn its back on nationalism and it should be thoughtfully integrated into the program going forward. chris, a republican, good

morning. caller: thank you, you are one of our best defenders of the constitution. the birthrate thing being born means you are taught our history. are still in the fight. we came in here fighting and are still fighting for our freedom. it is being taken from us now from the inside. i am amazed at it. the birthrate is, i am a citizen and i have the history of the country and my soul and heart and i went to vietnam and fought in vietnam. in 1971. i am a proud veteran and a patriot and it is killing me to see this thing going away from me by our own people. i would never turn on them but they are turning on us. i want my country back. that is with this is all about.

thank you for your service. cosmopolitan, beginning in the 1960's and 1970's, this has seeped into the american elite. a d nationalizing elite, which the late great social scientist samuel hunton said is probably unprecedented in world because usually conservatives are building of the nation and we have an elite .hat in some respects when it is taught, the idea that it is a tale of unrelieved repression and well -- woe.

since --rave national host: what is an example? focus it is important to on the history of slavery and jim crow in this country and i think conservatives have fallen down over the decades and wanted to look past and sugarcoat it. the lead essay in that series said the american revolution was slavery andting that is completely untrue. it suggests the constitution protected property in man when actually, between the offices of james madison, the phrase was explicitly left out of the constitution which represented a

but the idea was the constitution should not affirmatively defend slavery toward long-term goals. to ideals and eliminating slavery. you had a turning away of slavery in the north at the time of the revolution. every state in the north of theg a loosening slave system in the south. we would not have had antislavery to them the civil -- if the revolution it is up securing that and you us purporting to teach truthful history.

that it is not just telling the truth about our country. host: -- define american culture? guest: american culture is organic and has changed over time and it should. at the core of it is the english language. language is very primordial. it is very important. with some exceptions like switzerland, when you have large parts of the population that speaks some of the line which, you will have a problem. apartars ago nearly torn by a drive for quebec independence because they speak french and have their own culture on that basis. see spain now.

it is at the core of american culture. then it is all these informal mores, our cuisine and the way we dress, predilections and and immigrants can adopt this culture and have over our history adopting this culture. when i was a kid, there was one mexican restaurant within driving distance. it was a treat to go there. i remember lobbying my mom to go . and now there is a chipotle i every 10 blocks. the american coup zine has changed. but there is a core of it that has to stay the same if you want to preserve the nation.

host: what does one have to do to simulate? guest: the most support and things learn the language, learn andhistory, when the ideals feel a part of us. this is another important aspect of nationalism. i spent a lot of time in the book discussing teddy roosevelt on this theme. something he wrote and spoke about powerfully. host: "the case for nationalism ." norman out of new jersey. independent. caller: good morning. about the core of the united

states and we have different laws in every state. like 50 different nations. different gun laws. states -- state, we have blue laws. that is ridiculous. i thought we did away with blue laws. in new jersey, shops have to be closed on sunday. they try to say they want to make it a family day. stadiumhave giants tore about 90% of men go watch a ballgame and get drunk. this the you call united states? i'm not sure what nationalism is was such a different country in every state. a great point. we have a federal system that appropriately has a lot of leeway for decentralization.

we're not like france. but the hypothetical i used to illustrate the point about america and its culture is, if on the steps of the paris opera house tonight, and african-american meets a white american and they instantly have more in common than anyone else around them because they speak the same language and can communicate, they probably dress largely the same and like the same cuisine and have an enormous stock of common cultural knowledge, and that is true whether they are from new jersey or whether they are from california. are asly in that sense we united nation although we appropriately under the constitution give states and localities a lot of leeway for self-rule.

host: you mentioned france a moment ago. i want to take viewers to the moment you opened your book. this is french president emmanuel macron from november 12 of 2018. this vision of france, a generous nation with a vision to carry universal values have in a dark times exactly the opposite of the selfishness of a people, which only looks at its own interests because patriotism is the exact offset of nationalists. -- nationalism. nationalism is a betrayal. by pursuing our own interests first with no regard to others, we erase the very thing the nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great, it's moral values.

guest: i think it is completely wrong. he botches the definition of patriotism and nationalism, as we talked about at the top. the idea that france does not pursued its -- pursue its national interests is completely absurd. there is not inherently an opposition between ideals and nationalism. the best nationalisms are infused with ideals. they both have an attachment to the particular and a belief in the universal. you just look at french nationalism, which a couple of centuries ago was based on the idea that france had the most christian king, and subsequent to the french revolution was acquired by a zealous idealism and universalism.

i spend a section of my book discussing joan of arc, who i think is a figure that represents the power. it is not exactly nationalism. you could argue if the term applies it certainly national loyalty and feeling, she has a vision that she should free the french land from the english and that the french should be governed by the french. teenage girlas a undertake this extraordinary enterprise to chase the english from france. the english, to erase all memory of her, to scatter her ashes in the river, they cannot eliminate the memory of her because she has become a symbol of the nation and has an incredible power throughout french history in particular and throughout rose history.

i think macron would do well to reconsider this. what do you say to those who say nationalism was the cause of two world wars? this is congresswoman val 10.ings on november she said, showing a picture of a jewishness synagogue -- jewish synagogue burning, this is where nationalism and anti-semitism leads. always. nationalism is an old and and can be of use, which is true of basically everything in this life. abuse.cy is we do not say therefore we should be democrats. i'm not an expert in the time of

the nazis, but they clearly had nationalistic appeal and used nationalistic symbols, but just awas not nationalist. what made him one of the most evil figures in all of world aspectswas the unique of moxie ali -- ideology, a bloodsoaked vision of so-called biological racism where their hands should rule germany and conquest.ope by this was not truly a nationalist project. by the end, he was happy to see the german nation destroyed as well. live up to his lunatic vision. caller: good morning.

i'm also a veteran. generator -- gentleman talks about migration and we talked about birthright and chain migration and that. don't we need to first look at the first family? and the chain migration happening there with melania and her parents? language andabout every other country speaks a language. it is a fact. languages before white man showed up. many hundreds and hundreds. my question of this man is what about chain migration?

guest: i'm not sure that the first family tells us much about what the broad -- rotter conversation should be. as with everyon other policy is, does it serve our interests, is it in our national interests? the attachment to the cliche that we are a nation of immigrants of skewers all rational thinking about immigration. one of the beauties of the country's many people from all around the world want to come here. my point is we should be whosier and get immigrants are prepared to thrive in this country as soon as they arrive. emphasis on english speaking. it does not mean there would not be a humanitarian element.

i think they're always should be in there should be a robust refugee program. i think we should have much more of an emphasis on skills just because it is a different a different economy than it was in the early 20th century, where you can have immigrants coming in by the boatload and you could basically plug them into the factory line and trust that everything will be ok. economy were education and skills are more important than ever, i think that should be reflected in our immigration policy. host: alabama, brenda, good morning. about trump.ee the world is on fire and he is a terrible person. miller is a white

.upremacist everyone in the rape that -- everyone knows kavanaugh raped guest: the charges against brett kavanaugh do not stand up, and i believe very strongly they were manufactured. and not everyone is for trump, obviously. have a very starkly divided country on trump, and i think it has just been remarkable how in the last three years, it feels like so much has happened. basically, everyone is exactly where they started out with on

trump, more or less. onre was one nbc poll impeachment, and it had 42% favoring trump's, and 46% opposing it, which the numbers should sound familiar come because they are the popular vote from 2016. , absentthis will be some unforeseen events, another very close election. from tony onnt twitter, saying words gandhi and nelson mandela nationalists? to be in theeems application of nationalist principles, not the doctrine itself. guest: both gandhi and nelson mandela were nationalists. nelson mandela said something to the effect of being governed by other people is a livingsocial for other people, and that is a nationalistic sentiment. also, another core belief

doctrine of nationalism, the nation belongs to the people. it does not belong to any one elite, andarticular the government exists to serve the nation, not the other way around. post: 20 minutes left with rich lowry this morning. the book is the case for , the lastm installment in our weekly author series on washington journal. we always do it around this time of year. this is patrick in coffee springs, alabama, a republican. good morning. yes, good morning to you sir. my question to you, mr. lowery, with nationalism and actuary cities.- sanctuary as a nation, hasn't this sanctuary city business gone too far?

elected officials of the sanctuary holdings are telling the federal government, leave my people alone, and yet they are squawking now about giving all of these illegals drivers licenses, and that is a free ticket almost at any voting registration booth in america, is a photo id, basically based on your drivers license. i would like your take on that. guest: well, i strongly oppose sanctuary cities. they are a disgrace and the idea would not cooperate with federal government when they have immigrants in jail who have committed crimes, not cooperating with federal government and finding out what else they are guilty of and ifding them over deportation is called for is terrible. we have seen the downsides in some of these horrific crimes that have been committed by theye who are sprung when

should have been handed over to the federal authorities. i think you are absolutely right and this is wrong, and a practice that should stop, but some localities have doubled down on this as a way to thumb their nose at president trump. host: your thoughts on gun sanctuary cities? virginia leaders urged resistance to gun laws, compare it to the american revolution. guest: i do not think we are in a revolutionary period in this grossy, and that is a rhetorical overreach. i don't support as a general matter gun control. theink the bizarre part of debate in this country over mass really most or all of the gun control that are to combat ormeans discourage or even eliminate mass killing's has zero

interaction with mass killings, if you look at background checks, the most basic of these ideas, universal background checks, so-called, the problem is most of these shooters have not been adjudicated, they are not guilty of a crime prior to these heinous acts, and they passed background checks. so i do not think this agenda makes any sense. missouri.ridgeton, this is anthony, and independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i see it in more of a biblical perspective. i am not sure if you are familiar with the prophecy of the one world government under the one world ruler in the end of times here? guest: i cannot say i'm am highly familiar with that, no. well according to the prophecy, there will be one world ruler and one world religion, and one world government.

you can see we are on the verge of that with all of the diversion and all the corruption and all of the hatred in the world. mr. biden: mr. lowery? host: mr. lowry? when people started reading the bible in the vernacular, they all imagined themselves, including england and subsequently us, as the ,uccessor to ancient israel which was a nation, not a modern nation, but on the border of has its israel, own laws, sense of togetherness and mission, and this notion really put an imprint on the modern western world and the nations that make it up.

talking toent time evangelical voters only about their support for president trump, but isn't the evangelical right acting like a controlling elite in contemporary america? guest: i don't -- i don't see that at all. i think part of the support for president trump is -- you read , i heard earlier that he is going to protect them from controlling elites. the evangelical support for in that more a populist sense. most evangelicals that i encounter and talk to, they support trump, but they are fully aware of his flaws and the downsides of how he conducts it isf and what he says, just they do not see any alternative and what they are being offered from the other a party that supports

abortion on demand in every circumstance that has very little regard for conscience constitutions the is a living document that should be changed in keeping with political agendas, so they are really thrown in the arms of trump. some evangelicals are very strong trump this. i think the evangelical leaders who go out on tv and defend everything he says, every word he says are disgracing themselves and they shouldn't do it, that there should be an awareness and a forthright acknowledgment of the downs by, but making the case that in this betterf gray, he is than the alternative. host: this is that tweet that you just referenced, bret hume

in response to the christianity today editorial column, calling on president trump's removal from office. saying a day after the tweet came out, people mystified by evangelical support trump do not seem to get the reason why. evangelicals do not support his conduct, but they believe he is their enemy's enemy and is willing to fight. that hour of washington journal should already be available on the website. this is donald in south bend, indiana, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i will be real quick. a couple things i want to say -- nationalism, phrases like nationalism and affirmative action we should just bury, because they take on a life of their own. another thing i want to say, i think the reason why you wrote your party, because

or your trump supporters, that trump has really gone against climate change and everything, and you guys know there is going to be an influx of environmental refugees possibly coming into because of the policy of this administration to toally put their blinders on climate change. your comments on that? guest: thank you. that is not why i wrote the book , but i will take up the issue of climate change. fact of the matter is, any u.s. policy basically makes no difference in the global temperature of 80 to 100 years from now. even the green new deal would make very little difference because it is not just the united states that is feeding global