tv Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay The Empty Throne CSPAN November 19, 2018 7:11am-8:01am EST
launch series of events. you can still buy it. and i'm going to preside over today's discussion and i'm going to briefly introduce the co-authors you probably had their bios. he has have a long and distinguished career you can read about. jim lindsay is a senior vice president and director of studies here at csr. he oversees the work of more than six dozen fellows in the david rockefeller studies program. before he came back we will
have questions i just want to start by saying this book couldn't have been more timely. was whether trump was different in degree or kind. in some ways, at least in some areas of domestic policy. but where he really is different and kind is what you had written this book about. i want to start out by asking both of you what are the real world consequences of america advocating its leadership
role. i only write with people whose name comes after me in the alphabet. thank you so much for presiding. it is an important question about what the vacuum is. there's a bad news story and a good news story. gets filled by people who don't share our values don't share the appreciation of the rules -based order. and who want to do something different.
as the u.s. withdraws if it's not involved in building coalitions and bringing people together people are going to turn to others. in the chinese in particular are demonstrating capacity of filling the vacuum of bringing others along. or by fear they may be left behind. he saw the in particular with tpt. after all it's been a lot of time studying in those three days. the chinese took advantage of that and made their alternative trade agreement
that is the bad news filling the vacuum. they have that as a second sort of story. is their loss. the hope here is. the vacuum doesn't stay very long but if the vacuum does stay for a while not only the chinese and others that want to fill the gap do so to their advantage. they should not be more capable of.
assuming it is eight years. is there a silver lining. europe should be less dependent. what countries should do isn't necessarily what they will do or do do. there is another possibility. no company is -- no country is able to fill it. he will end up returning to a world of great competition. the reason they worked in the role space where the liberal international order was to present a return to precisely that world of geopolitical competition.
they talked about being present at the creation. that generation have lived through world war ii but also world war i. and it has left them with the recognition that if we were left with great power politics that what you are likely to get was not once but twice during the 20th century. and the notion of american leadership the united states, took the view incorrectly so that the values were intimately tied.
over the past 70 years. it's a leadership we talked about in the book. and the leadership that has underscored in the prosperity. trump's bark is worse than his bite. he hasn't pulled out of nato. or has he really done a lot of damage. there is two parts to that. one part is it's only been 18 months who knows what's can happen we weren't really
expecting the united states to withdraw. they decided over the week and that's weekend that's probably a good idea. and they didn't tell the allies that's what they were gonna do. we will see. one is we just don't know how much mark was coming down the pike. i'm not sure that anybody does. i think the second piece which is important is that take nafta. by going after and the very strong language.
this created a climate. in creating a sense among the allies and friends. we can't rely on the united states. maybe we need to find alternatives to the united states. they have now created a department of trade diversification. no longer to rely as strongly as heavenly -- heavily on the united states. even if the end result is no terrible change. it is deeply destructive of your ability to lead. and it's all about getting people to follow. and less and less people are willing to follow.
is there an example where we wanted people to follow us and they aren't now. see mac i assume that they wanted the world to follow it. everybody once the cost of the decision to manifest themselves immediately. the world doesn't work that way. they have a long shadow. let's go back and talk about some of these trade deals. we have a revision to nafta. what price did you pay for
it. when you hold up the present agreement they don't fare very well. we got a revision. in which the united states and the changes were extra -- exceptionally modest. on the number of cars that american manufacturers can sell into the korean market. the only problem was no american manufacturer hits the current quarter. we have created a lot of upsets. other than the united states to get a trade deal. it looks a lot like one we have when the president entered the office.
because nafta was functionally renegotiated under tpt. if you look at it what is new and it actually makes trade less free and open. they can have to be able to track all of this. i was just over the long-term. that was good to make american automobile manufacturers less competitive. let me ask you about the isolation. i'm interested if you think he is a party of one in other words we have seen congress push back.
the empty throne. during the course of the 2015. he didn't talk about it with senator rand paul of kentucky. he is clearly an isolationist. once a smaller footprint. the message that president trump have was if you're willing to pay me for it. we do it because it's in the american interest to do so. but we do it because of the protection racket. it isn't talking about coming home. the whole issue of nato. they were can spend more. and nato should as well. it's quite clear certainly on
trade a big chunk of the republican party is rethinking the traditional support for opening up markets. the distinctive thing about president trump. he wants to emphasize it keeping in the form products out of american markets. is the only one in charge. it's clear. on the issues like trade and nato. they still use that but it doesn't really matter. when the president decides this is what were to do that's what we do. i think rex tillerson and hr mcmaster found out what it meant if the president wants to go in a different direction.
the other get fired or the. compared to the one they did 15 or 1617 months ago. i know how to do this. and go away. my sense is that is how the staff is dealing with it. he's can be there. and he's can be in charge. let me ask whether he is out of step with the american people. we have seen support american leadership in the world go
up. jim is part of the advisory group. the international it is back. you don't really know the cause and effect. but there is more support for a strong american role in the world and there has than it has been since 1974. there is more support for trade in alliances. and for supporting our allies overseas than we have seen in a very long time. it's kinda like oxygen.
in terms of american leadership in internationalism. it's important to work with others. it's the absence perhaps the cost that comes with it. what is important in these results is it's not just democrats. as particularly republicans. they are pro- free trade even those who have a very favorable view of donald trump the majority of those things that nafta is a good agreement. does that suggest that this could be reversed. let's also function of what
others outside the united states want. the data in the polls is really striking. it's not just about broad questions. let's take two specific examples. the nuclear deal in the paris claimant agreement. they've take it in the united states at about the. how they hurt america's interest. support for both of those agreements had gone up. not down. and that's where the notion is. the idea that trump has been good for internationalism. one of the concerns i would have is either that others will give up on us they will
come away with a very different vision of who they think we are and i think americans should ever underestimate how much political capital they build up around the world and they stood up to the soviet union. people did not forget that. over the course of this. it was never the case that the united states always got it right. they made big mistakes. i think vietnam. i think iraq. when we made those mistakes they were not required by the demands of global leadership. they said don't do that. i'm old enough to recall when things were there. into the gutter to protest the fact that they have the u.s. invasion of iraq. my worry is that for more and more people around the world
were born in the shadow of world war ii or the cold war. and many more people born in a time when their image of america is crafted by or shaped by the iraq war raising hostility towards immigrants as subprime mortgage claimant. and we haven't talked about the so far. and we haven't talked about the so far. when we open up for questions from the audience. first, is this what they have always done with impunity. only worse or is this different in kind.
it clearly is the case. that the president decided that the first visit was to saudi arabia. the first time they have not gone to either mexico or canada the first trip. it was a trip where he wouldn't lecture him on human rights. he stood by the crown prince and imprisoned cousins a businessman. when the kidnapped the lebanese prime minister. it resulted in the breaking of relationship with canada.
on the part of the regime to think that they could see and buy if they murdered some journalist. in that sense you can't draw a direct line. there was no reason to think that the crown prince with everything you have done up to this point. they knew that they could talk to the president or his son-in-law and they would get stuff done. that doesn't mean that they were responsible for the murder of this journalist. they are the only ones responsible for it. you have to think through strategically the consequences of your actions particularly with the united states.
the united states is silent about human rights abuses. remember, the saudi's, the russians and the north koreans have all killed people abroad and vladimir putin they are now great friends of the president of the united states. what is the message that were sending. i would like to invite our members to join the conversation. everything that is said in this room is on the record. you will be given a microphone. please only ask one question at a time.
that. at the same time you also had a clear rise of populist nationalism. not just in europe in the united states but elsewhere. is there historical wave that the two of you will discern. that you were doing are doing about this book. the symptom rather than cause. in terms of both populism and nationalism. let's not underestimate. and we don't talk enough about nationalism. i sense that we need to stand up for the nation. in many ways.
the same kind of sentiment. it was one of the tendencies of nations. as opposed to the comparative advantage of work. and if you undermine that rules -based order. national sentiment will arise. it's kind of how it works. it ended in a terrible way. it was white we decided they were all men at this time decided to create the new system. and have american leadership without together. and if i against the very tendency.
we knew what know what the consequences were. what we are having now is a sense of amnesia. we don't remember. we don't remember how bad it can be because of for 70 years we've have this extraordinary success half of international system that had no great power wars in which everybody became more secure, more prosperous and more free and we thought that was kind of the natural order of things and actually it wasn't. it required real day in and day out activity by farsighted leaders who are both so the pacific to make it happen. don't want to pay for any more. it's a huge challenge to the system.
>> formally a foreign service officer. we have a question about the chicago council are you confident that you were able to capture in getting those opinions about foreign policy or were you just reaching the foreign policy elite. that is one of my concerns. i've a feeling that his base really doesn't care about foreign policy in the broader sense that we do. we are sitting here as the foreign-policy elite. what kind of president do you need after trump to clean up the mess. it is a broad representative
sample of the total population. it includes a representative sample of pro- trump base. and the remarkable thing and it doesn't matter whether you look at trade, alliance whatever. two points to emphasize. the american people are not experts on foreign-policy. you cannot overestimate the degree to which they know about foreign policy don't underestimate how much the end are they understand. in they do understand very fundamental concepts.
our polling demonstrates that. the second thing is that americans do not vote on the basis of foreign foreign-policy. it is extraordinarily rare and requires a huge political crisis for foreign-policy to play a role. if you look at the election campaign and the ads and everything else. so just because there is a sentiment publicly that says you can have an international foreign-policy. does it mean you can't win on the platform of protectionism and what donald trump has. it does mean transaction to the next question that there is at least a basis for having an international foreign-policy that shouldn't mean you are there. you don't have to become protectionist to win an election it is not going to win an election on it.
advice i once got for each career. be very careful in who you pick as your predecessor. the next president of the united states could be the luckiest man or woman around. they very much hope that america will return to the kind of foreign-policy it has pursued over the last 70 years. what the right tactics were. american leadership was something that resonated around the world. you go back to public opinion polls. you begin to see it. they don't particularly care for the trump administration. would you prefer to see if russia or china as a global
leader. it is pretty clear the answer is no they don't want too. the big question in the question over all of whom will he or she seek to do. if i have a concern in washington dc the convention wisdom is locked-in at the public. they want to come home again. people continue to tell themselves that. and that dictates the policy. policy. americans saw them vote in large numbers for members of congress on foreign-policy issues. but what the public does do. and gives the president considerable discretion. whoever is campaigning in 2020.
and the global competition for ideas and power we had one advantage over everyone else. with allies. with friends. in the russians in the chinese head clients. it's very different. so the first thing i would do is to figure out how do you maintain, strengthen and transform our relationship with allies. and then we could be transformed present trump is right. that the time for our allies to do more and carry more of the global burden has come in fact it's long been passed it was president albano who said that. they said it was time for the europeans to pay more. this is not a new thing. but it is time that more of the burden is taken on. but the one thing that makes us different from everybody
else. that allows us to have rules -based system it's true that they are not as powerful as they were militarily or economically as it was in 1945. but if you take our allies and added to what we have. we are in fact more powerful than we were in 1945. i think number one is understanding how important it is to work with other countries all over the world. and they are not just our former military allies. they are in africa they are in all parts of the world. make that part of who we are. it was george scholz who talked about diplomacy. and going over to make sure that the weeds were taking out the plans. and spending time there. how can he do the crisis management when you don't have an ambassador.
and it's not the democrats in the senate's fault. as they can't confirm an ambassador until it is nominated. which in the case of saudi arabia has not happened. is that rebuilding of our central capacity to work with other countries who are on our side and that is fundamental to rebuilding this. when is politics been easy. it is a hard business as you know with your own career. the other thing is i think it will get easier for an american president to make the case to the american people to overcome political criticism in terms of pursuing an international foreign-policy. if our friends and allies actually do more. part of that. they need to do it because it's in their interest to do so.
if they do more that is tangible it makes it easier for americans to make the case to a skeptical members of the american public. as well as with the dried from deals some of which are very long-standing. does this have a long-term effect on trust in america. and be with the trump administration or down the road no matter who is president into or six years as a long-term impact of that. and is that something that can be gained. the leadership at its addicts core depends on trust. it is the core of our ability to get things done. you can get people to do things that they otherwise don't want to do either through coercion or you do by
trust. and we've done it for 70 years on the basis of trust. and that trust is damaged if not broken. as we know. it's hard to get back together. it's relatively easy to break and it's very difficult to rebuild it. the longer this goes on the more difficult it will be to rebuild the trust not only because of the policies of the particular president but also because if the american people to start they want to do it again. it becomes a little bit more difficult. it's not just the president we have a problem with. and maybe part of the country. and as a judgment double come back to haunt the country. no more. thank you very much.
we will have a chance to continue this discussion in the reception outside. [applause]. the former first lady michelle obama autobiography was recently published and was already number one on the bestseller list. since stepping reluctantly in the public life i had been held up as the most powerful woman in the world and taken down as an angry black woman. i wanted to ask my detractors which part of that phrase matters to them the most. is it angry or black or woman. look for coverage of the book to her in the near future. on book tv.
over the past 20 years they had covered thousands of author events and book festivals. here is a portion of a recent program. we have looked at the independence in the foundation for our work because it's time to actually do to incorporate the value. in the 21st century to make the more modern. it was of course rejected by the publisher. we said that we were fighting for life and liberty in the insane time. the book is out. as the purest project of the organization. it was written by people from both sides.
it is divided into three sections. principals, threats and solutions. not that we know all the answers we actually start the debate. and we want to show the alternative. we don't want that political cycle to be caught in the same trap. and that the rational are with no choice. to pick up one side or the other. this cannot be reversed i met unless america recovers the global leadership. first of all our moral values. you can watch us in any of our programs in their entirety a book tv type the author's name in the search bar.
at the top of the page. join us again next saturday for the best nonfiction books. the communicators with the ftc commissioner. the supreme court oral arguments in the death penalty case inventory. john kasich speaks to republicans in new hampshire. history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc. .. ..