the nationbuilding exercise at all. good. we have some good arguments and good points to some degree. the purpose of the classes not to bring you to one side or another. we can agree these are exceptionally hard lessons. next class will pick up on those points. i will see you wednesday. if not later. take care. thank you very much. will come back, everyone. final session of the day answers a question that no matter what type of history you talk about, we find we have to often answer the question, what is the legacy? why does this matter? how does this relate to what we see in the headlines today? with that in mind, we decided to construct our final session, which is a panel discussion of scholaro

the nationbuilding exercise at all. we have different ideologies here. good.that is what political science is all about. we have some good arguments and good points to some degree. the purpose of the classes not to bring you to one side or another. we can agree these are exceptionally hard lessons. next class will pick up on those >> you are watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend

the idea that this is not nationbuilding. well what is it? , if we are going to avert their decline or make them stronger, that is nationbuilding. i think many conservatives and libertarians have some skip the schism -- skepticism. i call it the fatal conceit. i think there is a tension there between the confidence in the u.s. government's ability to do great things abroad even as they retain their skepticism about them doing great things here at home. >> how do we balance between our values and our interests get co should we have state -- interests? should we have stayed with mubarak? or those at the beginning that wanted to move toward democracy. >> there is a simple answer or doctrine or philosophy that can guide us because you have to look on a case-by-case basis. it will have our own particular interests we're going to have to weigh. to that extent, i see a need for realistic values and interests. the point i make is that you have to have both. not only because the american people will not support a purely realistic imperial germany. the

it is not nationbuilding at all. good. we have some good arguments and degree.nts to some the purpose of the classes not to bring you to one side or another. these are exceptionally hard lessons. up wednesday. see you next class. >> join us each saturday evening for classroom lectures from across the country on different topics and eras of american history. lectures and history are also available as podcasts. visit our website or download them from itunes. recentlyan history tv visited the macarthur memorial in norfolk, virginia, which was hosting a symposium for the world war i centennial. next, a panel discusses world war i's

nationbuilding. world war i kind of burst of the myth of isolationism apart, rendering immigrants ties, and through them the u.s.' ties, to the rest of the world, visible and visibly treacherous. in the context of the increasing chaos in europe, the u.s. foreign-born population appeared increasingly dangerous too many americans who saw u.s. national identity and sovereignty threatened by immigrants and during transnational times. immigrants faced a lot of pressure to melt into the melting pot during and after the war. of xenaades worth phobic activity took on new intensity after 1914. during the war, the hyper national 100% americanism movement, combined with pseudo-size -- pseudoscientific ideas about racial identity, sought the asation of immigration protecting the u.s. from the world. it was aimed at mostly immigrants from china and other asian countries, and culminated in three laws passed by congress during and immediately after the war. the 1924 immigration act, which used a racially discrimina

if we are going to fix failed averts or at least their decline -- that is nationbuilding. i think that conservatives, many conservatives, and libertarians have some skepticism as to how it works. so i do think there's a tension there. between a kind of confidence in the u.s. government's ability abroad, even hings as they retain their skepticism about doing good things here at home. >> let me ask you -- had a values and ween our our interests? for example, we talked a little bit about the arab spring. should we have stayed with mubarak? with ould we have sided those who wanted to, at least in the beginning, move towards democracy? >> well, i hate to say it, but there is no simple answer. there is no doctrine, there is no philosophy that can guide to look ause you have at it at a case-by-case basis. their f our allies have own particular interest that we have to weigh against whatever values we are promoting. to that extent, i do see a need for realistic diffusion of values an interest. but my point that i make in the article is that yyou have to have both. not only because

the nationbuilding exercise at all. we have different ideologies here. good. that is what political science is all about. we have some good arguments and good points to some degree. the purpose of the classes not to bring you to one side or another. we can agree these are exceptionally hard lessons. next class will pick up on those >> you are watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span three. to join the conversation, like us on facebook at c-span history. >> on wednesday, president obama announced major changes in american policy toward cuba, including restoration of full diplomatic relations and easing of inking restrictions. coming up next, lars scholes is in the history of u.s. policy toward cuba and what he deems are the failures of 10 administrations. this program was recorded in 2009. >> i think there is a little truth in advertising, to begin. i'm not a cuba specialist. i study the u.s. cuba relationship. what i would like to spend about 30 minutes doing now is focusing on what intrigues me most about washington's policy toward c

as a bumper sticker, they say we're going to only do nationbuilding at home, retreat from the rest ofworld. i don't want the american troops deployed on necessarily, see us putting boots on the ground unnecessarily. this is a case, suggesting a different course of action. the treasure and blood that was built to get them to the.where they are, think about the contrast today, new leaders. just this week the government has seems from outward appearances, reconciling with the kurds, they have an agreement on oil, agreement on the export of oil. at least begin to address those decisions with the absence of a pressure. i think, again, it is great example, fortunately a tragic fortunately a tragic example, but a great example of what happens when america unilaterally withdraws and creates a a void. bad things happen. hopefully they have learned the lesson. hopefully we don't just go after al qaeda and isis. we need troops on the ground and also to go after the taliban, not just al qaeda. hopefully we won't repeat the mistakes that we made. the status force agreement was a good sign. instead

isa bumper sticker, it attracted to say we are only going to do nationbuilding at home.are going to retreat. americanwant to see chips diploid unnecessarily. i do not want to see boots on the ground. this is a case where interests were suggested required a different course of action. think about the contrast today. , thethis week, iraq government has it seems from outward appearances, they are reconciling with the kurds. they have got an agreement on oil and revenues. you're seeing them work, at least begin to address some of those divisions allowed to fester with the absence of our pressure. example. is a great unfortunately, a tragic example, but a great example of what happens when a america withdraws and creates a void. bad things happen. we saw that in iraq. hopefully they have learned a lesson in afghanistan. hopefully, we do not just go after al qaeda and isis. militaryaring the advisers again till the administration we be troops on the ground in afghanistan to counter isis and to go after the taliban, not just al qaeda. hopefully, we will not repeat the mistakes

there is a lot of talk about nationbuilding at home.his is the kind of thing i think the populace strain. cruz and rand paul probably fit in well with that attitude. like a jeb bush i think probably doesn't. you one ust give example -- newt gingrich, a few was running hen he for president talked about a space exploration. something that i think is a good idea. read u go back and reagan's challenger speech, he francis drake ir and explorers and how this is part of our spirit of exploration. we have totally gotten away from that. when newt gingrich space expedition, he was mocked. mitt romney made fun of him and idea, t was a horrible and i think that speaks to an that americans have now, which is not adventurous, which is not bold. care of our 's take own and fix our roads in our bridges. need to do rse, we that, but i worry about a loses the let's go we have never gone before conversation. it t: of you are saying that is interesting that they do not care about the conversations when it is president obama who is doing the same thing. cal