tv James Clapper and Michael Hayden on Threats to Democratic Institutions CSPAN November 24, 2018 5:45am-6:59am EST
at this point i'm the best person for that. have the results. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span. james clapper is a former director of national intelligence. he and a former cia director discussed threats to democratic institutions. about an hour and 10 minutes. henry butler: good morning. good morning. i am the dean at the antonin scalia at law school.
it's my pleasure to welcome you here. i want to give you some background about our university. is ae mason university relatively young university. it was part of the university of virginia until 1972. mason, it's aorge living memorial to george mason. he authored the virginia declaration of rights. of rights is a precursor to the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. we've got a great statue out in front of our law school. dedicated in 2017. a tier one research institution.
that is a big deal for a relatively on school. we knocked off dartmouth. as the international school of law in washington dc and moved over here to virginia. it had escalators right to this wall here. the university acquired the law school in 1979 and had its first graduating class in 1980. the new building for the law dedicated in 1999. antonin scalia gave the dedication address. 2006, we named the law school after him. some very generous donors gave us $30 million. the law school has been a highly ranked school for many years.
, theve been the top tier top 50. that's good for a young school. our recent study right our faculty number 19 in the country in terms of scholarly impact. 19, i will say that again. that reflects our commitment to economics as the background. there is another ranking out there i had not heard of. rankingsroud of these unless we are ranked highly. the shanghai world ranking has us number 18 law school in the world, number 16 in the u.s. that fits in very nicely. it sounds like a very objective, high-quality study. we have a lot of research
centers that are outward facing. on octoberbig start 3. we had a tribute dinner to the scalia family at the building downtown. it was a great event. boeingeral counsel of gave the address. million in one night. fund,t to the scholarship our first need-based scholarship fund we have had here. the next day, we unveiled a statue of justice scalia. it's in the atrium of our law school. i encourage you to walk over there. it's larger than life. we had five support creek justice -- supreme court justices. our service center provides the
intellectual backbone of our school. it has been here since 1986. we've been running programs and economics for federal judges since 1976 and hundreds of judges come through our programs. we have a program for state attorneys general. we had a program on the economics of criminal justice reform. it does a lot of programs itself. ago had a program two weeks entitled the architecture of bureaucracy. they were trying to figure out why government buildings are so ugly. we had the global antitrust institute. they recently held a conference last week on the additional
economy. they are operating around the world. our center for the protection of intellectual property is one of the leaders in ip thinking. recently. program the national security security institute was founded and .irected by jamil jaffer: been aportantly, he has clerk twice for neil gorsuch. that, he is now a member of our faculty. that's under his leadership. yesterdayevent here with mark warner talking about
security clearance reform. that's enough for me right now. thank you very much for being here. it is an honor to welcome you. over.l turn it thank you very much. [applause] thank you.o: thank you all for coming. the ipo champions for this event. my partner in the last two months, my full-time job is founder and ceo. i thank my team for allowing me to do this. requests, no milkshakes
for you today. we are open until 1:00 in the morning. once this all about? the inspiration for this event came to me when i saw my church him threatens losing his national security clearance. i talked to him after that. looking at the turbulence we've seen in our political discourse which goes on and on and stretches to our institutions, we join forces with the national security institute and jamil jaffer to create a broader dialogue. our objective today is to bring to examine the challenges to our democratic institutions facing the world. we want to go beyond that. our hope is you will come away not more educated, but more
topired with what you can do help our democracy function more effectively in line with our constitutional principles. theave james rosen from center in philadelphia. he is made special arrangements to be here. it is organized around that theme. session, the education the white po group will meet. here,e two audiences there are two groups to pull this together. the young presidents organization and the nsi audience and guests. without nsi, this would not occur. i would like to thank general
theen for pulling together luminary resources and hosting this. ,e did this in a shorter time but we are thrilled with how it came together. i am going to introduce jamil , who has been my content leader. when i say tireless collaborator, that means middle morning, all early the time for the last two months. that has been true for general hayden. i'm indebted to everybody here. i thank you very much. [applause] jamil jaffer: i am understanding director klapper and general hayden.
nsi's new institution here. we are a startup think tank. our goal is to bring together more academics, more practitioners, students, leaders like yourselves to talk about national security and find solutions to the problems. created byidea general hayden's they were talking about the challenges. with yexcited to partner po. we will talk about technology and innovation. we would love to have you back for that event. you have heard from the dean. tell you how important our partnership with ypo is. we want you actively involved.
there is a screen over there. if you go on your web-enabled smartphone, you can put that code in. you can keep the conversations going. that will create a word cloud so we can take that away from this session. i want to thank general hayden, director klapper, thank you for coming. it's all yours. [applause] jeff goldberg: thank you for
being here. we are going to talk for a little while as they need no introduction. i will introduce them very briefly. together, they represent depending on your worldview the apex of the american intelligence and military establishment or the deep state or both. we can talk about the term "deep state" in a little while. you have two men here who run every aspect of the intelligence community. they have distinguished military careers. i am the editor in chief of "the atlantic." what i would like to do is talk
for 30 or 40 minutes and open up to questions. let me start. i have to start with the most obvious spot, jim klapper got a special surprise in the mail. it did not come to your home address. it was sent to cnn. why don't we talked for a little bit and you can tell us what it's like to be the intended recipient of a mail bomb. walk us the procedure when that happens. maybe discuss what you think it means. james clapper: thanks. we have a getaway place on the outer banks. down, this was the most disconcerting thing for me, i was listening to the radio on the way down to north carolina.
bomb's.about these pipe the one i paid closest attention to was john brennan. i thought if he sent out another but the most disconcerting thing was having to call our neighbor to say, cool it from getting our mail which they have done for 20 years. all of us had picked have picked table and ie on the had a text from jim shooter from cnn. and he said any comment or what so we turn on the tube and there is one addressed to me. i kind of expected it and i will say at least they spelled my name correctly and have the right
network. what does it mean? regrettably, it is a sign of the times. for having not been in complete alignment with this administration, he took great offense at that. the pipe bomb thing was quickly overcome by this heinous crime in pittsburgh, and then the killing of the two african-americans in a store in kentucky. of course, i believe those transcended the pipe bomb and i had the opportunity on cnn to
commend the work done by law enforcement. did an in particular andedible work of -- did incredible investigative work. not in tatters. they going to try to carry out their anger in violent ways? i became concerned that we would have a copycat. i did a small vignette that illustrates feelings people have hit.did a showbiz
window facing a current tuck sound. and just as we started, someone pounded on the glass window and it sounded pretty ominous like gunshots or exclusions. we got through the segment. the crew that was with me told me what had happened after the fact. this is how people get energized, radicalized. what iot unlike isis which wash very successful using social media only to recruit and radicalize people. very almost the very -- a
similar psychology at work and as long as our stable genius creates an environment that can seemingly condone this sort of going to havere more of it, i am convinced. goldberg: why do you not jump in here? tell us what this particular incident means in the larger context and i would point out of course that political violence predates donald trump. back to attorney general palmer. we have had long moments of political violence. what is different about this period? hayden: i do not want to
ofer simplify the rhetoric -- oversimplify, but there are parallels. at this, one of the questions, one of the arguments that we have a used this unhappy young males that do not have a good job? the answer is yes. what is the character in children's fiction? you.me pull societies create more often than not young men who are unattached and disappointed and feel just as though they have great discontent. they look for something larger then self that they can attach
themselves and in some cases it is a very positive step. they join the army, the boys club. the way i used to phrase it back at the cia is that this has more to do with the crips and the bloods than it does the holy when it comes to radicalization. the same dynamic that makes someone attach the grievance. but then you get individuals that are unhappy and are violence prone on their own with a great sense of grievance. and now have legitimization and justification to their grievance by attaching to something larger -- by attaching it to something
larger than themselves. for islamist terrorists that be particularly violent. this is the new part they now have a set of grievances to which they can attach themselves themselves that has been articulated by the president. if you look at the bomber, if you look at the incident in pittsburgh, there's a latent anti-semitism ended as a proximate cause in the belief ry withternational jew sponsoring the beginning a nation of america still a thousand miles from the rio grande. to answer the question in the current atmosphere i don't think we have any reason
to believe that this is going to stop. when just hard to predict that combination may happen again. the broader framework of this conversation is the future of american democracy, and we will move into that in a minute. but i want to stay on the specific topic of the man you geniusd to as the stable who referred himself -- to himself nonsearch on a glee as the stable genius. is this presidency coldly new -- wholly new. i want to stay on this theme that you talked about. in your own life have you seen anything like this? and what is fundamentally
different? had 45 presidents, 45 have refused to use the term language and vocabulary and the current president and they've refused for a reason. the presidency is the only nationally elected office in the united states we look to the presidency to unify us and not to divide. and simply as a political tool of the campaign tool to sustain in the administration. >> we have had bad presidents. president, none of the preceding 44, has used the language before and i will add another thought no other administration has normalized lying as much as this administration has.
>> we focus on the 45th president. he is a prominent symptom of a larger trend and exploited and -- and he very expertly something i didn't appreciate contemporaneously the anger and. at all things washington. real were fury created? >> as best i can tell it is real. part ofo-called flyover america, there seems to be a lot of it and it is genuine and he has capitalized on it. and we are not the only country. witness what is happening in brazil, germany, poland. this whole so-called populist
trend is not unique to the united states. and i think it will probably grow. >> is donald trump a symptom or a cause or both? >> both but the launch point is the effect, not the cause. the symptom, not the creator. exploited, brilliantly exploited factors in american society. i have tried to write about this. i went back to pittsburgh and the backroomr phil of a sports bar and he overachieved. he had about 45 supporters of the president. and these are good people.
they go to work. they pay their taxes. the kids go to school and do their homework. on if i had had a flat tire my way, they would've stopped to help me. but, they have a powerful grievance and the way i try to it is a winds of globalization have been at my back for 50 years and have made everything about my life more rewarding than it would otherwise be. winds of globalization in the ohio valley have been in their face for the same 50 years. so they have a sense of grievance that is deeply felt which is not to say it is justified but it is genuine and deeply felt. the president recognizes that and speaks for it. >> stay in the sports bar for
just a moment we know what , happened in pittsburgh. do you think the people you were talking to in a sports bar in pittsburgh now think of themselves wait a second, there is a link between the way the president i support and this terrible thing that happened in my own city. folks resilience of the in the bar committed to the president has surprised me over the last two years. a scientific survey based on emails going back and forth. -- >> how much do you link the president's rhetoric to what happened in pittsburgh? think,cannot, i don't make any ties directly to the president.
it has more to do with the overall tone of the discourse. there is a distinction between teleprompter donald trump and campaign donald trump. he contradicts himself both when he says the right things the initial statement the white house when you read something somebody else was written for azteca to these rallies i think they have some impact and he contradicts himself. that really
i think conveys a terrible message. the atmosphere in this country, the divisiveness and polarization, it simply ample flies -- amplifies it. to november 7.ve we are going to see the return of a story in this torrent of stories, mostly bad, that we have been grappling with which is the robert mueller investigation. could you talk for a moment and please general hayden at on to this, but i was struck a while ago when you started framing out what you think might be happening with his administration in terms of
watergate doing the historical comparison. can you frame out your current view on that and where do you think we are headed in this investigation? i gave a speech last year at the australian national press club. i was asked to compare this administration to that of watergate. i made the comment that i thought this situation was much worse because of the involvement of a foreign adversary who cap -- who we have not mentioned so far but also exploits this divisiveness and polarization in this country and that is russia. because of the aggressive involvement of russia
particularly in the meddling in 2016, although we did not say this in our community assessment, we could not, but i made the point in my book that i believe the russian meddling was so monstrous and multidimensional that given the closeness of the vote count, i believe it turned the election for president trump. us, they arend very astute at exploiting the same polarization and divisiveness. that was why i responded the way i did in june of last year, that the situation is worse than watergate. >> to go back to where we are and where we might be going in this investigation. are we going to be facing calls
of impeachment following november 6. -- january 6. if you were sitting on top of the u.s. intelligence committee would you be meddling in russian advocating doing the things russia as they are trying to do to us? i think i would be in the mode of imposing costs. doing to them what they do to us i don't think would be reciprocity. it is a totally different system. >> they have weaknesses in their system. >> yes, but they have different leverage points. that yoube the fact had the strong people around vladimir putin who know him very well and most of the country is
not. in reviewing how and why and what degree they live well and others don't, would be a good twill. there is a fascinating dialogue where you had the outgoing commander of cyber command and the incoming commander. in front of the armed services community and the intelligence community being asked by senators -- you said the president has not given you specific directions but if you -- what if he asked you what you would do, what would you do? and both of their answers separately was that they have not paid high enough costs. we need to impose costs on the russians which is not at all defending against the russians. they would be in favor of defending but that is not what they were proposing here. they were proposing costs. more action.
commander, they were in essence asking for political and legal guidance above the normal threshold of cyber espionage but below the threshold of what anyone would do fine as armed conflict. in other word, a very aggressive cost imposing strategy against not preventing them from doing what they do but making them come to their own conclusion that it is probably a bad idea. >> the other aspect of this you have to consider which we ran into in the obama administration particularly with respect to reacting to the russian meddling contemporaneously was that you always have to weigh what will be the counter retaliation? and that is what tempers i think
, from a political standpoint or policy standpoint the use of cyber offensive weapons because unless you are pretty confident in your ability to withstand the counter retaliation and you are resilient enough to recover from it, you want to think twice before you take any actions like that. to answer your questions, jeff, if it were me sitting there, i would say -- i certainly think it would be appropriate to tee up a menu of things, options that the policymakers to include policymaker number one. but also be sure to point out what the downsides are employing those troubles. as you may recall, the reason what occasion or -- location to or heightened the strong personal animus that vladimir putin had for hillary clinton was because of her alleged role in promoting what he saw was another revolution in 2011.
this is clearly a vulnerability of theirs. the decision is, do you want to exploit that which we certainly could. ok,you need to think about what are they going to do as a counter to that? and the obama administration took a lot of criticism for not doing more at the time. calculusis part of the that we got into because it is not as a we did not seriously consider this at the time. ,> i need to add though something jim suggested but i want to highlight. what we just talked about here is the equivalent of a painkiller. the fundamental issue here is not russia. the fundamental issue here is the united states. and we would have a degree of this problem -- a serious degree of this problem even without russian --
>> societal weaknesses? >> i cannot prove jim's premise about the russian meddling. legitimatep is a president of the united states and so now the question is how it is he governing? and that is the core issue here. that, asre question on intelligence chiefs, if you were in office right now, would you be comfortable sharing very, very sensitive information about russia with the president of the united states? >> you get the secrets. >> there is no choice. you are obliged to be as senseight with whatever of intelligence you have. >> let me ask you this question about our friend as a democracy right now. we are talking about a symptom and not a cause. fukuyama wrotek
an important article "the land thatstory" which posited the world had come to the conclusion that liberal democracy was a political endpoint. wasyone agreed that this the way we were going to organize our societies in the future. three or four years ago president obama spoke about a moral arc of the universe. there was a kind of feeling through the previous several presidencies that time and human ,ehavior were on america's side on the side of democracy and democratic development and we were aiming towards something, the widespread adoption of the american model. i am surprised and others were as well just how fragile this idea is. is wondering if that for you among the bigger surprises of the last couple of years. how you think about the
durability of american democracy and the democratic experiment. -- a line that is like and as a question. >> that is a very heavy question. i do recall president obama speaking about this privately and publicly about the great institutions, the values and norms of this country which has been durable but at the same time, they are also fragile. and if the practitioners and of thoses institutions, norms, standards, behaviors choose for whatever them, thento support we are in real trouble. institutionsese are a lot more fragile than people think. we take them for granted. it is the way we have been for so long. it is one of the reasons i think
that mike and i have chosen to speak out to make that point. to try to do our little part to educate the public about the fragility of our institutions. >> noting something interesting -- this seems now a normal conversation with these gentlemen, but imagine 10-15 years ago, these gentlemen would be considered political dissidents in our country. not exactly from hate at -- hey ashbury.- haight you were in the nsa, for goodness sake. >> let me speak to that quickly because i want to talk about mike.
>> a beautiful city and you could see on the skyline the austrian government buildings you have steeples and domes. it had been a vibrant and tolerant city. aboveuld see in the hills its serbian artillery and in the streets below the results. was not that they were different from us. but how much they were not different from us. the thought that i had i have that city wast -- the host of the winter olympics 10 years before that. the veneer of civilization is actually very thin and while it
might be our natural right, it is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. and therefore needs energy and nurturing and care and we should not take it for granted. it? wefragile really is have been doing this for 200 years. the 1860's were not an apex for the system that we came out of it as one country. on the other hand, it seems durable.y dermal -- it seems impossible on the other hand that a reality tv star could undo what took 240 years to build. believe they can undo it in four. >> eight?
>> yes. the sounds you hear are institutions digging and to the rule of law and how long can they withstand. read the federalist papers there are reasons we want him to act with dispatch. anotherive you historical moment and i will be efficient about this. i do not think it is 1860 but the 1890's. very quickly there is a lot of turmoil in the country fundamentally because we were trying to adjust the institutions that have governed us as an agricultural society to convert those that would serve an industrial society and we actually had a populist twice
winning the financial class for the betterment that would have prevented industrialization. we -- the kicker is he lost twice. and we have teddy roosevelt and a get onand we got with it adjusting the institutions still anchored in the first principles. in order to govern an industrial society. we are now trying to do the same thing to govern the information age and a populist ran again and won. and the response to this is we don't want to become that new society. we don't want to be protectionist. all of the things that new
is, he is pushing back against. so my fear is not the general bitterness of these institutions but my fear is we are not getting on with it and we are not making the adjustments. >> china is, by the way. we have to make changes and if we refuse to we are going to fail. >> i want to have it from what you said toward the future. it is it -- iive want to pivot to the future.
i want to ask you a narrow question that leads to a big question. how do you buttress the laws and institutions so they can withstand the changed norms of this president? , theentagon and the cia justice department, the fbi -- how do you buttress those for the next two or six years so they maintain their coherence and cohesion and commitment to constitutional democracy? the larger question is when you think about the future, how do the parts of america that you believe are worth defending? the parts of the system worth defending. take it narrow and go big or go straight to big. -- that is a
ponderous question. >> i am a ponderous guy. , whether have observed it is conscious or not, but a lot more local activism. you drive around the country and you see what the governors are doing and the mayors of the cities. get one going to try to with what is right for their communities and states. think the activist groups need to try to keep the administration honest. when there are distortions or lies. level, ie individual
get asked and i am sure that mike does also, what can i do question mark well, one thing you can do next tuesday is vote. that is a cherished feature of our system. and we, all of us come it need to protect it i exercising it. challenges, how do institutions push back against presidentorm busting in our history without violating their own norms? example, in front of you now are two career intelligence officers on the end -- on the edge of violating their own norms by being here. and the fact that we are both under contract to cnn as you suggested earlier, my goodness, that is really different. mclaughlin, morel, all outd, john brennan,
there because we deeply feel about what is going on in the country. we do not coordinate. >> there is no collusion. >> but the unifying thought i think that we share is that this is not normal. we should not pretend that it is normal. we should keep emphasizing that it is not normal but had we do that without violating our own norms? military as mri. donald trump is the commander in chief. here is a real-world example. -- does the north, commander comm commanderorth
's plane his fears? look at the moral and operational dilemma that that offer sir is in. what is it he allows himself to say westmark something you won't see is what does he allow himself to tell his people? his troops? >> very good question. why don't we come over here and then go back there. heart, the bottom of my and i'm sure everyone's, thank you, thank you for all that you do. [applause] what you are talking about is so fundamental to the survival of our democracy and the world.
i hope the world. fundamental, thank you for what you are doing as former senior government and intelligence officials and some other former officials but there are very few current officials or republicans in congress that are willing to say the line has been crossed. in accepting your point that order to do that you have to violate your norms, at some point, that line gets so dangerous and the example that you just used of a valid military order, he is the commander in chief that can give orders, but when will we start to see -- what will it take for members of the military, members of the administration, or republican members of congress
to start to stand up and say, it has gone too far? let me start with the institutions and then up to congress. the institutions have to try to observe their norms. they may realize that fixing a does damage policy to the institutions and process. you have to be careful. not going tobly help him with tv cameras rolling but i think dan coats has been quite masterful and the last pe eight months. 6-8oes not pick a fight -- months. he does not pick a fight or eat his chest. fairlys to be indifferent to whether he is on the same page of the hymnal or not of the folks downtown. secretary -- is
think his response to the the isnder message from and it is about as close to the edges you can get. have au are scheduled to long briefing on his options with regards to transgender troops he tweeted, it is over we are done. they are not going to be in the military. the cheese may have had a different view a few years ago and now they are with their troops. commitmentd a moral to these people because they were on the team. their ethic would not allow them to abandon them. studysue is still under in the department of defense. you do have institutions in the executive branch. what is odd is a constitutional limit on the president should be the article one guys, the
congress. not only is congress not limiting the president to date, but the president is enlisting his party in congress to beat up the agencies of the executive branch that he cannot seem to bring to heal simply by executive fiat. i've never seen any like that in my life. >> speaking of the fragility of our institutions, i agree with mike about dan coats and chris wray, the director of the fbi. for,the occasion called they quietly and i think effectively made the points that need to be made. i think it was a very courageous thing that dan coats did after helsinki. in his statement. i am sure he thought that this could be it but he stood on the principle. think there is i a heavy and double burden on the
leaders of these institutions. mikeread the fine line as characterizes it between standing up for what is right and not violating the norms. >> i went to second the motion of thanking you for being here. you guys are the best of america. [applause] my question is what do you do about saudi arabia in light of current events? [laughter] >> this is not company policy and mike might disagree but i think we should have been much response.art in our cutting off diplomatic relations.
and conveying the message that that behavior is completely unacceptable and arms deals be damped -- be damned. png means persona non grata. the ambassador did it to himself. but he is technically welcome to return. rationalizet try to this behavior. the president has very elastic evidentiary standards. [laughter] that he conveniently applies and that is the case here. >> i wrote a piece for the m.ll.com at 10 of -- hill.co
this is a tough call for the president. not an easy question for any president. we spoke earlier about the words matter and context and responsible for the synagogue killing but you know, actions matter. that is why we have been complaining for two years. what we have done in our relationship with the kingdom is personalize it. between the young minister of just about everything in the white house and the crown prince. a 37-year-old and a 33-year-old. we not only do not have an ambassador in riyadh, we not -- we have not even nominated an ambassador to riyadh. we don't have the structures in government.
we have this thing based on a personal relationship which is structurally and procedurally wrong. and if you don't stop wrong over time, there will be consequences for that. what i point out in my article was that they did it, they intended it, and he had to know. intel guys have got to stand in the room giving the president that information and refusing to budge and frankly, grabbingrivate moment the vice president or maybe the national security advisor and saying -- you realize that if the other branch asks us, we will tell them the same thing also. that is hard. go again back to -- i had to and tell george bush some really unpleasant things but i never thought it would threaten my work for the president. --here are some questions
there are some questions over here. it --kless doom of movitch formerly of the cia. i now teach. what do i tell my students about careers in the intelligence field question mark what do you tell people in college interested in serving our country in intelligence question mark >> that is a great thing and i know mike has done the same thing that i have. i have personally found it very encouraging, very motivating that there are a lot of great young people out there that are very interested in public service, specifically in the national security arena. and intelligence. is what i tried to tell them what attracted me, why i was
motivated to stay in it as long as i did. but it is a noble profession. , publict -- a sacred trust. satisfying to be part of something larger than yourself and contributing to the safety and security of our country. i have been -- no college or university that i have been to come up big ones or small ones, i always run into a cadre of great young people that still want to serve. despite the current atmospherics. >> what i generally say for young folks is go do it. work hard. make this president better then he would otherwise be. and then i say, take good notes. keep them in a drawer. [laughter] you have to protect yourself. i have a different story the more senior you get. the more i am saying -- you may
not want to go and do this because if you are a very senior person in the administration, you have to decide number one whether you can have any effect. and that is going to be on you for ever so if you're not going to have effect, you should think twice. but at the ethical level, will be able to go where you want to be? mattis' job jim right now and the president says send 5000 troops to the border to deal with this imaginary crisis. how do you respond? this is just the kind of
question that i think secretary longs would have to think and hard about. one other thought. going back to the intelligence part. if you still wanted to have a session and we did not have this atmosphere, we would complain about the things we had to do while in the government. and those are edgy things, we admit and things we legitimately need to debate. but they only take their by being attached to a higher moral purpose. and if you doubt the government embraces that higher moral itsose, this loses legitimacy and validity.
end, i will say, those are highly personal decisions. and having gone through that myself a couple of times, what you way is -- what you weigh is, if i resigned, will that be more disruptive than if i stay? you do way those kinds -- you do of issues as ids am sure jim mattis has, it is difficult. >> thank you for coming. about thisestion administrations diplomacy. our president has cozied up to and disrupted our
relationships with our traditional allies. go to visitsidents canada on their first trip abroad. he went to saudi instead. and you hear him talk about his lovefest with kim young none -- kim young un. what is the long-term impact in the disruption in our traditional allies and what kind of damage is this doing or is it likely to be doing in terms of the willingness of our allies to cooperate with us, share intelligence with us, work with us on bigger, global issues? ed inave weekend pyongyang. >> and director klapper, i read your look this summer and it was fantastic. i look forward to reading
your's, general hayden. pr for theiate the book. i cannot speak authoritatively on this. australiamonth in last year and one this year and just got back. great concern i know amongst us trillions and canadians in particular and the brits who are our closest allies about the path of america. we going to pitch out of the traditional role that we have played championing liberal democracy since world war ii? we set the framework for the international order. tos is very disconcerting our friends and allies overseas. what i told the australians though this year is -- you
cannot keep ringing your hands over your discomfiture, regarding the behavior of this administration. if i could be so presumptuous as an american, you need to look for opportunities to fill those sorts. alliances. if you perceive a shift, other people have to fill it. stepping up to bat and figuring out ways to use their power to fill the leadership void. for example, the tpp. the other thing i tell australians and i think it is true of a lot of countries, we have deep and herbal pillars of our relationships. economic, our
history, culture, and language, and our history relationships as well as intelligence relationships with a lot of countries across the world. those are pretty deep and herbal. to this point, they have caused bythe assaults confusion about our leadership role. but it is in such a position to embrace autocrats and this -- and dis our traditional allies. very disconcerting. >> that is a great question and a good point to and on. for theican strategy last 75 years is written down in a document called "nsc 68."
the book, i downloaded it and reread it. one of the most used words in the document, a strategic document that truman requested -- there are pages to this concept. ensure aessary to world in which american values could survive. word diversity. it is route the document. it also called for a per -- a robust american role. american values, american society. we cannot survive in a world that is hostile to those values. things withine the document that i think has been the pillars to our approach.
number one, immigration is a national advantage of the united states. alliances are a strategic move and free trade is good for america and the world. all three of those are not assumptions. iny are all jump balls american society. i think that is one reason why i get a bit also. so much nervousness abroad. jim talked about norway. recognizedust, i was by a norwegian. he made a couple of complaints and then said, i grew up in a world where a great and powerful nation wish of my country well. my grandchildren jealous in that world. >> thank you to you both. very fascinating discussion. thank you both for coming. [applause]
>> thank you, everyone. our next panel starts at 1:15. i look forward to seeing you back in your seats in the next 12 minutes. >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." then a discussion of opioid addiction and the u.s. and then joe biden presents the -- metal to former president bush and laura bush. this weekend, on c-span, tonight at 8:00 eastern photojournalists talk about their favorite photographs on the campaign trail. light first.the
that is how i do it. and then you look really hard and work really hard because there is always a story to tell. it is stagecraft, political theater. you always try to lift the veil so people can understand what these people are like. tonightok tv on c-span2 at 8:00 eastern, war photographer lyndsay at darío talks about for grabs has taken in the middle east. >> there was a call to arms and they went and we went with them. it was terrifying. by the troops and the airstrikes, there were mortar rounds, sniper fire, it was relentless. these guys would often run away and leave us come the journalists on the front line. and we would run away after them. >> on american history tv c-span3 at 8:00, how the