Skip to main content

tv   Washington Post Discussion on Threats to Freedom Democracy  CSPAN  March 25, 2019 3:26am-4:33am EDT

3:26 am
going to have in the kong this year. and for my opinion, if it's not the strongest possible privacy protection then there's no point in -- the states that want to give private protection to their citizens. the internet is like the superhighway but eventually you have to take the off ramps to get into the neighborhood. the off ramps are your search engines, social media. facebook and google and some of the other providers have enormous control of what we see, when and how we access it. i think this the ripe for the public square for a debate. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> the "washington post" hosted this discussion on the rise of national little and author or
3:27 am
anymore and the potential threat they pose to freedom and democracy. t's just over an hour. >> good morning. and welcome to the "washington post." live events on raghidaen kagan's "the strong man strikes back." i'm really glad to see you all this morning. this is, i would say a mostly auspicious occasion for several reasons. auspicious because we are celebrating publication of our first "washington post" opinions essay, a new initiative reflecting our commitment to in-depth opinion, narrative, analysis and argument and at a time when a lot of us do a lot of fretting over short attention spans and shoutfest arguments, i think it's encouraging that
3:28 am
we've had so many readers eager to give time to reading a serious piece of journalism like this. online as well as in print. of course, that willingness is mostly a reflection of -- and this is the second reason i would say the occasion is auspicious. the brilliance of the essay. think bob's argument on the ideological challenge from authoritarianism is original, timely and hugely important. third, it's an auspicious event because of the panelists who've agreed to join us and discuss and perhaps take issue with bob's argue. we have three of the smartest people in town who have been practitioners and thinkers on the subject. and auspicious because all of you have joined us. i really appreciate your sharing
3:29 am
an hour of your available -- valuable time and i look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions afterwards. the actually substance of bob's argument, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, generally gloomy and utterly terrifying. but knowing that bob is not by nature generally gloomy or terrifying i'm hoping that part of today's session can at least point us in the direction of what a useful response to the elements described in etc. essay might look like. to that i'd like to [applause] for this to fred hiatt innovation in our newspaper. if you are a writer and you get words,e, imagine 7000
3:30 am
this is the innovation we like to see. it is my pleasure to begin our conversation of authoritarianism , a retiredllen marine four-star general who commanded our forces in afghanistan and subsequently was of the special envoy to the coalition fighting a and professor of the brookings institution. about authoritarianism and in what way you see this movement
3:31 am
and its interests, why do think it is on the rise and what are the basis of what you think we should do about it? john allen: david, it is great to be with you. it is terrific for the washington post him -- thisngton post to sponsor and it supported to the readership and our public. i think one week, as i grew up in the cold war era, we had a since that there was a certain inevitability to what might be the liberal democracy, the movement and the world and much of the world and the aftermath of the cold war would either be governed by democracy or trading in that direction and i think we felt that is reality has become different.
3:32 am
bob, in his excellent piece has pointed a couple of things out. of global been trends economy, global economics and unfulfilled expectations among large segments of populations. the collapseath of of the cold war and the emergence of what we thought was going to be this community of nations largely governed by democracy. that left a large segment of populations disenfranchised. as a result of that, it has given rise, the potential for the emergence of authoritarianism before strong men to emerge. to harvest the populism that is in this particular moment. from my perspective, authoritarianism, autocratic governments are a genuine threat
3:33 am
to the united states, but not just to the united states but the broader liberal democratic order. we champion that order in many respects. of the manyauthor different facets of the order was that the global economic relationship, our relationships in terms of security alliances, whether it was the united nations and the idea that all of the community of nations have a stake in each other's future and security.s the united states was at the heart of it and we've fostered it seems a relationships that would ultimately create this global order that was based on the tenets of the principles of liberal democracy. as a that has begun to proceed, as we have begun to see the hostilee of china, a aspetitor in russia,
3:34 am
witnessing the conditions in certain countries come together --create a populist based based that could be harvested by stroke men, this has begun to push back upon the liberal democratic order. let us remember what the order is about. it is about states that are committed to the rule of law, stays committed to equal rights. walterwho recognize that is this thing called sovereignty, the interaction of people is very important for the furtherance of the good of all humankind. states come down on those kinds of issues and away we would want our democracies too. the will of law is a separate toward authoritarianism. human rights, in fact, is an commitment to human
3:35 am
rights is an obstacle to the capacity to warm their society. and democracy, our democracies are governed are the consensus of the masses. an authoritarian states, they are ruled by the consent of the few at the top who have seized the kind of power to dominate the society. there is an advance of authoritarianism anywhere, garrett richards of liberal democracies somewhere. the united states needs to be toolutely committed preserving as much of the world order that we fostered as we could with our allies. they were partners with us. we have to be committed to this. as these authoritarianism, as of these autocrats come forward at of the shuttles which is what bob's point is, they have always there aren't strong multilateral organizations committed to the rule of law, committed to human rights and guarantee ofd the
3:36 am
equal rights for all. when we were together as a community, as a community, they had a little space to maneuver. you theet me ask skeptical question. we have a president and of the white house, who among many things he says, said something that is widely filled by americans wish we have been widely filledt is by americans which -- some would argue that we have over moralized american two-putt it and values terms rather than stricter terms of national valuest -- to put it in terms rather than stricter terms of national interest. it would require such a strong response is you are describing? gen. allen: if which really
3:37 am
believe in our own values, one of the things i did last night was to reread the declaration of independence and the constitution and if we believe in our values which they are enshrined in a set of principles that value the will of law above all other things inherent to the toe of law is a commitment the human rights and equal rights of the population. in those are truly our values as a people and as a nation and as a community of nations with whom we are aligned very closely, then it is something that threatens not only the community alliesons, not just our but the very social fabric of the united states of america, in particular. when we see games by -- gains by authoritarianism that triple democratic -- tramples democratic issues and circumvents freedom of speech identify andek to
3:38 am
marginalize a segment of the society or a faith practiced, that is a threat to us. we stand for. we should be standing up against it. statess the united combat authoritarianism at a time when many people at home and abroad believe that the united states has a somewhat authoritarian president here in washington, d.c.? how does that work? to be clearwe need about what appears to be u.s. leadership and american leadership. you are an american leader. these are american leaders before me and american leaders watching from the webcast. institutions like think tanks, all --ities, these are
3:39 am
these are all measures of american leadership. american commitment to democracy and human rights and the rule of law. when i see our friends overseas and they are scratching their heads about what is coming out et, ishington for the twe ask of them please do not make a long-term structural decision with respect to your relationship with us. there will come the day when you will not hear that again. you will see a synchronization of what we would called america leadership with u.s. leadership again for home human rights is the first mission of relations with the nations. not an afterthought or completely off the table which is where we find ourselves frequently as we deal with overseas. i think there's a very strong american predisposition, very
3:40 am
strong american buyers to all of all ofhings -- bias to those things which are values base. i believe we live our values. outside the beltway, you go to a state government or municipal or county, democracy is strong they are. by and large, people are desperate for reassurance that the democracy means something and stands for something and their values mean something. a large segment of the american population feels disenfranchised and that is cause the dynamic of populist dynamic which was harvested by certain people. that dynamic has delivered us into the political environment we are in today. it is not the problem of the president. he has found himself in opposition where this long sweep of disenfranchisement of sediment from populations have delivered the political environment ultimately that
3:41 am
permits this kind of government to emerge. i do believe the american people recommended to these and our foy and we seek to extend them to those who are our friends and not our friends that they will take a price for the authoritarianism. david: one more question on this somewhat political area, do you ofnk this pedal -- period nationalist populism in the united states and body to buy donald trump with authoritarian characteristics and attacking
3:42 am
the media, do you think this will be short lived? gen. allen: it didn't start of last tuesday and will not end next tuesday. i think this president is a symptom. ofhas harvested the outcome something that is symptomatic of something deeper in our society. however, driving the widget to the society which marginalizes segments by race or a felicity nicityder or faith -- eth or gender or faith has exacerbated the issue. there will be a day and for those who would seek to lead our help to governo this democracy need to be thinking about what are the conditions in this country which in part and an aggregation
3:43 am
created an environment where this kind of government could emerge if you do not like, we need to decompose white and begin systematically, i know many would like to begin treacherous those issues. david: you were our commander in afghanistan and i could remember visiting you in kabul. americans asked of themselves as you must, how much longer do we do this? it is now 18 years we have been a loved in this war and of americans think what have we gotten out of this? -- and a lot of americans think about what have we gotten out of this? we have active negotiations speaking to the taliban and it has infuriated the president of afghanistan, which you know well , who feels we are abandoning him. are we abandoning him? do you think the kind of deal
3:44 am
than bassitt are -- in the ambassador keeps faith with the men and women lost their lives under your command in of your colleagues? gen. allen: not a day goes by that i do not think about the troops, those who lost their lives and the thousands physically wounded and suffered from ptsd. not a day goes by. with hereping faith sacrifice is very important to me and the sacrifices of their families, goldstar and blue star. i cannot tell you how long we need to be there. madedvances that have been in pakistan which is often not the depicted, often not pointed to two, advances made in the social environment, life ,xpectancy, child mortality
3:45 am
access to health care, improvements in education, the earliest moments of democracy. all of those things were under way absent -- utterly absent on september, 2001. in the aftermath of the attack, the u.s. and global world went to defend -- defeat the taliban and put in place a government which could be preserved over the long pedal of time, the and the principal opponents remain the taliban. one of our biggest diplomats, ryan proctor, i had the opportunity to talk to the taliban and that never went anywhere. , all conflict ends
3:46 am
with a peace agreement. with -- who is a great to diplomats and known to the region and all the participants, he has gotten this started. i understand that the president has been very unhappy as expressed by his national security advisor in town last week. started without the afghan government necessarily act the table will not be a process concluded without the afghan government being a full participant. i can understand why he is unhappy. but, i fully expect this administration and certainly as ,epresented the special envoy the ambassador, i fully expect that at a particular moment, the afghan government will be full
3:47 am
participants. while the conversation has begun about the taliban committing not to become -- not becoming a terrorist platform and the conversation about the parts are of foreign troops. there are under -- other essential things and we have to be skeptical of the taliban's willingness to commit. the taliban will not roll back the rights of afghan women have achieved, enormous right and that pedal of time of this conflict. a great american emphasis, our european our pies have been in this, the eu, doing everything we could to try and bolster civil society. where government sometimes will flounder, sometimes become quite wobbly, a strong civil
3:48 am
environment can be the foundation for it. asianropean allies and partners, they put a lot of effort into a civil society. as an entity is a threat to the ideology of the taliban. we better be up to square that circle before we talk about the permanent outcome were the united states with our partners and leaves exposed the afghan. i understand you to say we should not leave until we have some confidence that these human rights for the afghan citizens gained rights for women, rights for people are preserved. the audience, if you want to join the conversation with the general allen, #postlive and i will look at my screen. another of the things you did in your remarkable career was play
3:49 am
a role as an advisor to the talks on korea, the denuclearization. here we are dealing with the same ask it of issues. i wanted to ask you after the breakdown of the hanoi summit whether president trump overreached and this very personal diplomacy? second, what is next? as an advisor, what would you tell these folks they ought to be doing the next? and one more question, if you were prime minister they in japan,ooking -- abe in would you think japan needs a nuclear deterrent of its own? gen. allen: let me applaud the president for having the courage to speak to kim jong-un on. there will be those who say he
3:50 am
has legitimized this horrendous isalitarian regime meant it horrendous. having been an observer to the six party talks where six with ans came together earnest desire to find our way out of this nuclear wilderness, it did not pan out. this president was handed a very difficult security environment and northeast asia and in particular, as kim jong-un ultimately has demonstrated, he has achieved a strategic nuclear deterrent. an icbm that could reach the united states. he appears to have not just been able to miniaturize his nuclear devices into a warhead, he has been able to -- the physics associated.
3:51 am
and our intelligence community has said he has multiple were hits. -- multiple warheads. beenher president has confronted with the reality that this regime could in fact, if this is a suicide regime, it is never quite clear what their final outcome might be in a pinch, this regime could reach is fake. -- its fate what has not been helpful has been this rhetoric. first of all, the rhetoric that really brought us to the brink of potential for conflict and northeast asia. and then the rhetoric and of the summitth of the first which produced a pretty hollow whichstatement, none of has come to pass pretty rhetoric that said i have solved the
3:52 am
nuclear deterrent and there is no north korean nuclear threat any longer. what that does, it deep pressure pressurized -- de- or wasas substantial -- substantial factor in their coming to the table. chineseessurize and the walked back. and then the rhetoric from the hanoi summit where we have fallen in love with kim jong-un. it heightened expectations for an outcome that was quite disappointing. and, again, if the president did not get 21, permitting kim outcome,redicting what we doing behind the scenes with our experts to set the conditions for a summit where we
3:53 am
have as leaders arrive real outcomes?ns for showing up and having meetings with no real expectations for outcomes leave you at a point where we cannot agree on what denuclearization means. little and about my sinuationshon -- in about the japanese. facing this- japan direction. gen. allen: we worked with korea and japan to provide enhancements to their missile capabilities. we have worked very closely in terms of the networking for missile defense. and nothing has really changed as i understand what this administration.
3:54 am
nothing has really changed with respect to the extension of the deterranceinants -- for the region. point, it is a logical question to be asked both in terms of decision-making ul ande blue house and seo tokyo weather u.s. nuclear umbrella is credible and whether it can be sustained or if it might be sacrificed in some form or another for some kind of an agreement that will almost certainly not denuclearize the peninsula. it is almost impossible to imagine kim jong on will give up all of his determinants. the japan a might have to explore that. i wouldn't not encourage that. they may have to think in that
3:55 am
terms. they are to the logically sufficiently advanced -- technologically sufficiently advanced. 30 secondsave about left. a pointed question for one of our followers on twitter. straight to the point. how can we address and stop the growing authoritarianism and the united states? again, i am always renewed effort those of you watching and who are here, you need to read the constitution. you need to read the declaration of independence. we are beginning to see, democracies do not happen fast and do not move quickly. they have little -- democracies have lots of shock absorbency. it is enshrined in our constitution print article one
3:56 am
is all about our legislature. we're beginning to see now the legislature is beginning to twist a bit onto this subject of addressing the drift them if you will, towards authoritarianism. i think our founders were brilliant and -- and and bedding these checks and balances -- in bedding these checks and balances into our constitution. our fourth of state has never been more important then it is now, free and independent media. the legislature is beginning to find attraction. i think i'm of those interlocking dimensions of am --an democracy, i where optimistic. --id: great as a pretty
3:57 am
great answer. such a pleasure to have general len. i want to ask fred hiatt to come back on stage. [applause] fred: all right, i am back. i am fred hiatt, editorial-page post."at "the we are under to have wendy sherman former under secretary of defense and malcolm nance,
3:58 am
intelligence officer. fellow and washington post attributing columnist robert kagan. thank you all for coming. really appreciate it. let me start with you, wendy. you were the senior diplomat during the last administration traveling the world. i am sure you heard frequently the chinese argument that authoritarianism works better and they are building high-speed rail. we are giving up after spending a few billion dollars somewhere in fresno. how attractive is that in the world? and how true is it? wendy sherman: terrific to be here with you. i think bob wrote a brilliant
3:59 am
essay. the reason it is an important essay is it helps us understand that what we are experiencing now is not a brand-new and not specific to the united states. this phenomena, liberal democracy clash with authoritarianism is happening all over the world. that is why well brexit, theresa may asking for three-month extension in hopes of getting something done. while we have dissented around the world. say that,he chinese yes, indeed, we can get better transportation, we can reduce poverty in our country which they have done as you well know, nonetheless, it is authoritarianism for nonethelest is authoritarianism for whom? it is certainly not the consent of the governed, which is part of our declaration. it is certainly not about human rights, because we know they are not only phenomenally
4:00 am
disenfranchised but undergo -- in china. we know it may not be sustainable over time, but i think one of the big points in bob's essay that is very important as china is now going to be the owner of so much data opponents people, so much control -- data about its people, so much control through the internet, so much control through technology that one of the great challenges we all have is wrapping our arms around technology, because technology has been part of the disenfranchisement of people, of feeling like they do not get their fair share of the world, and when need to make sure that and that that technology is used as a democratic tool and not as a totalitarian tool. that is a huge point, and i want to come back to it, but i want to take a slightly different aspect on
4:01 am
technology -- you a question, bob. assume,a lot of people i certainly didn't come about authoritarians can take their country of to a certain point, it could riskme, the amount of agriculture into fording the factories, but a free democracy, you needed a rule of law, you needed to let university students express creativity, people talk to each other and have newspapers. that wrong, was it right but now it is wrong because somehow thenology has changed equation and allow to be both totalitarian and prosperous? mr. kagan: i think it was ho chi minh who said about the french revolution "it is too soon to tell."
4:02 am
i do not know whether we know yet. the only thing we can be confident of is that expectations that, for instance, in china, which we had ever since they sort of opening that left, that politics and economics would gradually open up china, and eventually, that may be true. but what we have seen actually has not confirmed that. they clearly have some of the best minds in the world working. they are competing with us on artificial intelligence very effectively, i mean, xi jinping has moved things in the other direction. so they faced that we made to have come of the iron law that existed in the relationship
4:03 am
between liberal politics and liberal economics is not something we can have any faith in right now. whether that proves true, eventually, we will find out. fred: don't count on it as an inevitable process. mr. kagan: the other question, of course, is what happens in the interim? it may be that 100 years from now, it will prove true, but what happens in about 100 years? an increasingly powerful, economically powerful, technologically powerful china still run by a very rigid kind of autocracy. still on the technology views, i mean, i think a lot of lot of assumed, as a wrong assumptions, obviously, that the internet was going to be a course for freedom and would undermine dictators. now, as bob described in his article, it is being used for the perfection of dictatorship,
4:04 am
and every authoritarian or may haveas aspirations to use social media to become a totalitarian leader. is that an inevitable process? is it still possible that technology can be a force for good, and how can you push back against that? of course i start with a hard question? . [laughter] that is ani think excellent question, and the point is "force for good." when facebook and twitter started out, they did not intend to be evil, right? then again, gunpowder did not intend to be evil. is just moved that way, perfected itself in dynamite and bullets. inial media was launched those first waves in the middle east, and the revolution in tunisia in 2010 and 2011, in egypt where facebook and twitter were these, you know,
4:05 am
informational and dissemination tools, which allowed people who want to democracy, who wanted to spread the word of freedom and collect a lot, was really, really powerful. said, dictators, they are not full spirit they pay attention to this as well, and in these dictatorships, they also saw that they themselves could identify all of their pros right down to the individual or the opponents down to the individual. they could manipulate information, and the 2016 election, we saw organizations fake a netting, where entities were pulling the puppet strings of individuals and making them organize for a purpose that they did not intend to. fred: and they had no idea who -- mr. nance: they actually had no idea who was pulling the puppet
4:06 am
strings. i actually had an assassination plot come after myself and msnbc host joy read and pretend to be someone in denver at an internet forum in denver, but it originated in st. petersburg, russia when all was said and done. they know how to manipulate information, they know how to use intelligence, and they know how to break the will of individuals. we have used in technology to express itself. freedom of technology is now a weapon system in the cyber war. it is no different than a cruise missile, to some extent, and the battle damage effects are that it smashes the cycle. 2016, it was not the democratic national committee that was hacked, it was the mindset of the american people where the people who saw these platforms as hammers and anvils
4:07 am
managed to forge a new alternate reality for one third of the population of the united dates, and it has proven durable. so how can we defend against that? for the most part, organizations like the "washington post," transparency and awareness is easily the most antiseptic and the best way to wipe up this mess, but then you have an adaptive inner in a mean that is going to take that and move around. we have seen the russians move cycleots in this election to humans, where they take teams and actually interact on a real-time. fred: let me pick up on that -- mr. nance: sure. cyberand talk about the war. our awareness of this started while you were still in office. the answer for the best defense is to subscribe to the
4:08 am
"washington post." [laughter] fred: it is very wise. we beyond that, what would be doing now if we were responding as actively as we should? maybe we are. and what defense is there? ms. sherman: i think there is a whole cast of things that we ought to be doing. and let me say in full disclosure, i did work for one of the technology companies that is trying to create cyber norms around the world. the obama administration, certainly the trump administration, seems to be not august on this -- not focused on a command center, but not setting up a rules of the road for cyber. when you start education in our classrooms. we just heard general alan talk about the importance of because addiction and the declaration. there is a reason why hamilton the musical was so popular, because it made real for people the possibility and the optimism
4:09 am
and the trajectory of who we are what we are about. people are hungry for that, so i believe in civic education, cyber education, good hygiene, knowing what we do to protect ourselves, what we expect from our governments, working in alliances -- i know that is a strange concept these days to actually work with friends and partners around the world to tackle these issues, but it does help us get to the right place. one of the -- as i said to fred at harvard, director for the weter of public leadership, are trying to get young people to understand what it means to be a principled, effective, public leader, and cyber and technology in the right use of technology is certainly part of that. point, chris, who teaches about ethics at harvard kennedy school, wrote some time ago about how liberal democracy
4:10 am
needs a salesman. and if you go back to the declaration, which the general was talking about, it is "we hold these truths to be self-evident," and we need to remember that we believe these weths are self evident, and need to claim them and fight for them and make sure we fight on behalf of all of the people in our country, not just the 1%. on the response, i think part of the message of your these as i read it, is liberal values have not always been self evident to everybody, and it kind of goes, waxes and wanes, and there have been other periods where people lost confidence in them. and you don't offer much of a -- well, how are we going to get out of that?
4:11 am
how can a turnaround? the last time was world war ii. the lack of confidence. confidenta more country the responding now, and do you see any possibility -- how do you regain that momentum? mr. nance: i wrote 10,000 words. i could have written maybe another 10,000 words on how to come up with some answers. i do not think there is one answer. i think restoring some understanding, and i think the generation does understand that they are being bombarded with fake news. more young people are looking to the "washington post" and other sort of responsible and careful media and understanding the difference in that and what they are getting, but i think we need nationalnother real
4:12 am
discussion about liberalism, the liberal values. leftnot mean liberalism, and right liberalism, but i mean the liberal values in the declaration of independence, because on the one hand, we say well, that is just right, and we don't have to think about it. or i don't like it, i prefer socialism, or whatever people prefer. but i think we need to have an honest conversation about liberalism precisely because it self-evident,ay, it has not been historically self-evident, and liberalism is about trade-off. there are things lost, you know, it is sort of two cheers her r liberalism, and we need to have a conversation -- what values -- what are we elevated? do we care about individual rights as the primary goal of our government, or do we care about other things? or do we admit was lost when you only focus on individual rights? i think we have to have that
4:13 am
honest conversation again. we have taken a lot for granted. the cold war -- it was not a simple thing. communism, democracy, this is more complicated. there are weaknesses about liberalism. authoritarians are exporting those weaknesses, and liberalism itself is questioning, you know, whether it is viable, so we need to have a discussion. i know i am going to get hammered for this, but i spent my entire career as an intelligence writer, working in the shadows. we are at a point where we are afraid to say, and i will sound much like robert kagan, that it is time for a second cold war. i am afraid to say that democracy must be defended, right now. we have been under attack, and that we have that attack occurring within our own institutions, coming from -- i am sorry to say -- our own white house is now attacking the 243-
4:14 am
year tradition that has maintained the balance, is attacking everything that has been built since the end of world war ii, the entire atlantic alliance, the trade and treaties that we have had established, that has established some semblance of stability throughout the world. and it is being done at the behest of a dictator,, you know, who is the next kgb colonel. works. know how that it would be like making me president, you know? there would be spy operations every day. and he understands the power of harnessing information and turning that into a weapons system. everything we see, even though it comes from the russian federation, is really a product of the soviet era kgb. fred: so are we fighting back? nmr. nance: no! fred: why not? mr. nance: "washington post
4:15 am
" islamic front line of this battle -- fred: why? mr. nance: the greatest information is the suppression of information that will allow us to defend ourselves. the next president, whoever it is, and i challenge the democratic nominees who are coming from president, they will have to enunciate a position on the defense of the constitution, as it has always existed, not just getting back to the norms, anyone can get back to the norms. oh, you will have a nuclear war. no! i want a war where the foundations of democracy and what happened in the 2016 election is punished and shown that the united states and its allies will never allow this to happen again. [applause] fred: let me turn to you, wendy,
4:16 am
picking up from the. we didn't buyon, it john bolton to be on the panel. id invite john bolton to be on the panel. ms. sherman: that would have been fun. fred: yeah. i have a question from a reader, feel thatr, would you from fits the of eric terrie aun mold? have a 2020, iou mean come on the campaign, not the result, necessarily, will include a discussion of these issues. do you see anybody on the who is willing to lead in defense of liberal values? ms. sherman: i think there are a number of candidates running
4:17 am
that will defend democracy in a number of ways that malcolm just laid out and that got applause from this audience. , think that madeleine albright who is a dear friend, a business partner, and my former boss, wrote a book called "fascism: a warning." she said repeatedly although she does not consider donald trump a fascist, he is the least democratic president we have ever had, and i certainly endorsed that position. one of the things we need to understand, although i agree with what my colleagues have said here today, is that people in our country, because technology has moved so fast and because there is so much social change, one of the other, one of my colleagues at harvard has risen about the cultural backlash. that 55-year-old white guy in the middle of our
4:18 am
country -- and i have been married to a white guy for years, so i love you all -- but is privileged, his power has been lost. he has lost his manufacturing job to technology more than trade. the people down the street who he likes a lot now can get married. workver wanted his wife to -- although i believe women should have whatever choice that they want -- so he feels dislocated, unmoored. that sense of dislocation, of disruption is what donald trump has played upon, is what he has grabbed and says, "i understand your range, and i am going to stand with you." and even though change, as bob pointed out in his historical as and comesith life with history, the industrial revolution was critical to our economy and our wewth, destruction is what
4:19 am
are seeing now, the kind of destruction that malcolm was talking about a moment ago, and we cannot stand for that, or we will lose the strength of our democracy. you write that authoritarianism has an appeal to people who are feeling that loss that wendy is talking about, race, religion, family, and liberal democracy has no answer to that or for them. true?hat have to be is there no way that liberal dsmocracy can take those lea into account and still respect individual rights? mr. kagan: it is probably to start is a liberal democracy has no answer to it, because we have obviously had long periods where tradition, including religious tradition, and liberal democracy have coalesced in and never any place better than the united but there is intention,
4:20 am
and i think intention is inevitable, because what we are talking about is the expansion of liberal rights. we expanded it in the 19th century as a result of the civil war, and there has been a continuous expansion ever since. when there is that expansion, there are people who are going isfeel that they -- that what they want. that is not the country that they want, and this is happening all around the world. times are moste stressful, whether there is an economic crisis or in the case of your because of an -- and it hasflux happened in the united states periodically, in the 1920's, for instance -- that is the time when people most react against liberalism. in better times, the accommodations can make more easily. so there are a lot of factors going into this. in the case of the united states, you know, i do not think
4:21 am
president -- i do not think donald trump read in this world -- created this world. he benefited from it. he is playing on it. but a president does set a tone, and a president is someone who can remind americans what matters, and most of our presidents, confronted with these passions and pressures, have worked to tamp them down, not to inflame them. i think what mike's trump special as a president is that he tries to inflame them. he is a beneficiary of them. any otherink almost possible candidate in either party is more likely to try to control them, because that is the way presidents generally responsibility, is to keep these things under control. i do hope if we ever get another president -- [laughter] mr. nance: sorry. ok. [laughter] mr. nance: that we get a
4:22 am
different tone in the white house. [laughter] and: i want to ask about aspect of the rise of authoritarianism that we feel personally here, which is they are reaching beyond their borders, not just in cyber but actually physically. using poison gas in salisbury, england. hai fromse kidnapping thailand. inis still missing, still the prison system somewhere. and of course jamal khashoggi, to colleague, being lured istanbul,e in hi and there being no account to that. what do you think is the response to these events, and
4:23 am
what should it be? mr. nance: it is pretty simple. the alliances around the world have been removed. i will go right at the president. don't worry about it. ms. sherman: [laughs] mr. nance: we have a president who has decided that the united states needs to be part of an axis of a talker cno part of a democracy. he wants to remove all of the defensive systems because he thinks that they are antiquated or they do not have personally. by doing that, he has rung the alarm bell, he has given a permission slip to every totalitarian nation in the world to do as you use, all right? the abduction, murder of jamal khashoggi is insane. it would never have occurred under any other president, because they know, the saudis have written about that world my entire life, i have hung out with these guys, drink with them -- drank with
4:24 am
them -- fred: drank? mr. nance: yeah. after prayers. [laughter] mr. nance: they do know that it president of the united states would put his foot down and bring the entire burden of american power on top of them, for sanctions, would do anything to ensure that human rights violation would a, never happened, b, not happen again if it does happen, and c, ensuring some sanctions, taking away some of their choice. this president shows that he is open for sale, and you can, a, do what you want, because we are not going to stop you. the attack in england, the chemical weapons terrorist carriedhich was out by a class one terrorist group, a state intelligence agency design to kill two individuals but sickened over two dozen was literally a terrorist attack carried out in
4:25 am
the middle of one of our allies. we are finding they are using state-level poison, radioactive isotopes, to kill their allies in our nation. this is why i am saying it might be beneficial or it may have to happen that we have a second cold war, where the intelligence community will now start confronting these activities on an international scale the way it was in the 1960's. to put them back on notice that the united states will not be pushed, and we will not allow these activities to occur again. fred: to wage a cold war like that, presumably you would need a lot of popular support. you worked for presidents who, while -- i won't go into comparisons, but he talked about it is time for nation building at home. wone was a sense of ok, we the cold war, we are tired, why are we still building fire stations, and i need a fire
4:26 am
station here? can you rebuild a popular consensus that, yes, we need to be leaders. ye we need to be givings, foreign aid. where does that come from? ms. sherman: i think you can, because one of the things people understand out of the 2008 recession is that we are connected to the world. that we do not live on an island, even though we are oceans, andtwo big certainly not 11 prove that our oceans do not keep us secure. we are connected to the world. and i think whoever becomes president next, and i'm hopeful there will be a new president 2020 -- [laughter] ms. sherman: because i think there is a lot of talent out there, that president not only elevates the value that we have been talking about this morning that helps to understand that our government is going to support those people that feel left out and left behind, that
4:27 am
all boats can rise. lightare ways to move forward, where, yes, there will be trade-off, no doubt, bob is right about that. but we can manage those trade-offs, we can soften the negative impacts of those trade-offs, and we will be out in the world as we leave here and when i was undersecretary, i traveled to maybe 16 different countries while out with the four years -- while i was undersecretary for four years. we need the united states to lead. we will do our part, but we need you to lead, and it is because no one, even today, has the economic powers we do, military powers we do, and most fundamentally, the commitment to freedom and to democracy that we do. and even when people do not like what we do, they hope for us anyway.
4:28 am
and we need to return to that. stated, and we are basically out of time. let me doing 20-second lightning round. i have one more question that i want to ask from bob, a different bob, i assume. [laughter] fred: what can we do on a daily basis in the lives we lead, in the choices we make, to strengthen liberalism and oppose the slide to authoritarianism? mr. kagan: that is a terrific question, and i'm glad that question was raised, because i do think that, you know, there has been a tendency in the united states to say, for institutionsr will protect us some of the checks and balances, congress, etc., or when we get a new president, everything will be fine. the president will fix it. thatnk we need to remember
4:29 am
institutions do not work unless people are demanding that they work. there is nothing automatic in our system that saves us from democracy collapsing. it requires our efforts, everybody's efforts, and i would ever, every than individual in this country needs to be an activist and needs to be a demander of their politicians, outspoken in what is now a wide-open media environment. there are a lot of ways for people to express themselves without using nasty words. and also in terms of talking to their children and in demanding a good educational system. it has always been true, but it is more true than ever that individuals now really matter, if we are going to sort of save what it is that we have created. [laughter] fred: thank you. i would like to thank brookings
4:30 am
for sharing bob with us and general allen, you for the great article, and all three of you for what we can agree is a great panel. thank you for a much. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> on the next rep. jackson lee: "washington journal," the latest on the ueller report. take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and on twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. on facebook and on twitter. pres. roosevelt: the only thing
4:31 am
we have to fear is fear itself. not what your ask country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked -- e buildings down noting the best and worst chief executives, the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted professional historians. explore the life event that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies that they left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's "the presidents" will be on sale april 1, but you can preorder your copy on /thepresidents, or wherever books are sold.
4:32 am
>> next, a look at birthright citizenship and immigration policy in the u.s. the tenement museum brought a group of historians, journalists, and scholars together for the discussion. it runs about an hour and a half. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to the tenement museum. my name is laura lee in and manage that program here at the museum. i am excited to have you for our discussion on birthright citizenship. we are here with our partners, the scholars strategy network, which we will hear more about later. how many of you have been to the museum before, i am curious? wow, excellent. thank you for coming back and for being connected to us in this way. we actually see these talks as an extension of the conversations we have on our tour. so what we do here is we tell the stories of immigrants, migrants and refug


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on