Hosted by the American Academy of political and social science. She is the recipient of the academies 2019 Daniel Patrick moynihan prize. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay, everybody . Im tom kecskemethy, executive director the American Academy of political and social science. It my pleasure to welcome all of you to our seventh annual Daniel Patrick moynihan lecture on social science and Public Policy. Very briefly before you move into todays proceedings, i know we all want to hear from ambassador power, were pleased to such if the last as always, happy to be joined by folks who work with senator moynihan and to be joined by members of the family who have been so supportive of this enterprise from the start. I havent seen morena yet but she may be. She will be with us at some point today. Maura is his daughter and shes been a tremendous supporter of our organization and this initiative from the beginning. I also would like to thank Sage Publications your sage in the publishing world is probably the preeminent Publishing House concern with the social sciences. Sciences. They also published the title we went out of my Organization Called the animals of the American Academy and also the principle cosponsor of this lecture having given us some generous funding to support this enterprise, so thank you to them. Also a quick thank you to the willard staff and to my staff at the American Academy. They have just terrific in getting all this started. We are going to a brief time for question and answer after ambassador power talks. Twopoint about that. One, it is going to be brief. We will only have probably time for several questions and i would ask you to keep your questions succinct, to do your level best to not make them little many mini lectures of yn or position statements that actual questions. Second, please wait for a microphone to come to you. We are very pleased to know that cspan was going to be covering us today and we also have our own inhouse tech staff so wait to be heard before you speak. That would be terrific. And with that welcome ken prewitt to the states to take us in todays proceedings. He is the carnegie professor of Public Affairs at Columbia University and a political scientist by training. Hes also a former director of the United States census. More to the point of todays proceedings, ken has been a past president or director in some sort of most every organization thats been influential in this country to improve the social sciences in advance their interests on the National Stage and is also currently the president of the American Academy of political and social science. So ken, if you please. [applause] thanks, and welcome. And i will suggest a few words about the academy itself. Its 130 years old, founded by people of the earliest generation if you will of the modern social science community, didnt come along to the 1880s. The earliest come by the way we were all trained in germany. They did come in and help our Research Universities get established before the social science. But they were peripheral of course. They were compared to communities in the natural sciences. They were really immature as sciences. And the idea they should have their own academy was an idea that came out at the university of pennsylvania, and launched it, and launched it with the journal. So it became the earliest journal in the social sciences that had the responsibility that tom just mention of doing more than just reporting our research but also reporting our research in such a way it was critical to make a difference. Its been very successful sense. We dont make a lot of noise about ourselves, except about 12 years ago the idea was why do we do at least one thing publicly every year for, whenever and later youll see we elect fellows and that became the moynihan award. Everybody knows that this was an unusual man. I have a code that someone asked me to read some going to do it. The nations best thinker among politicians and best politician among thinkers. And thats true. He went back and forth without any hesitancy, always carries his deep commitment to social sciences and getting the story right. As i say we started about 12 12 years ago with this award, and the event, alice rivlin was her first awardee and many people nauseous passed away this last year, and so we do recognize that and she was a great i think i saw becky blank walk in, maybe. Yes. Whos also a moynihan awardee. Did i miss anyone who is here today . Haskins is here. Sorry, yes, please. My immediate task is to get somebody else up here who can speak more whats the right word eloquently than i can about our speaker, about ambassador power i would say the 12th year of doing this and for about half of those years we were looking for somebody out of the international world. We want to recognize pass ambassadorship to the u. N. And its hard. We simply never came up with somebody within the International Sector who we felt was senior enough and so forth to a the award. And so youve done us a big favor, because ive been under lots of pressure. Why in the world dont you get but also to powell will be introduced by avril haines, marvelous trajectory when she stands appear. You wont recognize her traffic physics degree from university of chicago and then you say how in the world did that come about . But that wasnt enough, then she went out and got a law degree from georgetown and is now Columbia University, thats just an accident. Not quite but where shes extremely active in a number of initiatives that the Columbia University is engaged in and so forth, and i wont go into those things. I want to say a a word or two about her own shes out in the National Security system under obama. Make sure i get it right. Deputy director of the cia, the Legal Advisor National Security council, was a real player. Shes a very modest person and you would not know that was true of her, but she was a major player in the last go round and remains that, remains an active, and so avril, would you please take over . [applause] thank you so much. Thank you, ken. Honestly, im incredibly grateful for the opportunity to briefly introduce samantha as this afternoons, for election as a winner of the Daniel Patrick moynihan prize. And in part because its a real gift to have an opportunity to force sam in a ballroom full of people to hear what i think of her, because she would never stand for the smoke im about to blow if we were alone together. But also in large part becausei really believe this prize uniquely suits her. There are the obvious parallels between moynihan and samantha. They both have irish roots, though samantha was born in ireland and is a proud immigrant, and they are both authors although sam, i have to say, insanely won a Pulitzer Prize for her book in her 20s after spending a year as it were reported in the balkans, and theyre both harvard professors, and she still is, both served as the u. S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Moreover, like moynihan, samantha is an ideas person. She is someone who is intellectually insatiable on a range of topics in beliefs that the biggest problems causing human suffering in the world today can and should be solved. And they are both incredibly charismatic as people. But that really is a what is thinking of when i thought of her as being so wellsuited for this particular price and for giving this lecture. Samantha exemplifies a leader who champions the use of informed judgment to advance the public good and someone who has consistently pot as i know ken has in the American Academy of political and social science has, to further communication between the academy and the policy world, between scientic thought and practical thought. And i have no doubt that youll see that today in her lecture. The importance she placed on evidencebased policymaking and the value of social science and Academic Research and rigor was obvious in her approach to decisionmaking, of her memorandum she worked for the president in her interventions in meetings and in and she selected to have on her staffs when she worked at the white house, or when she was ambassador to United Nations. She is an intellectual that wants to face the really challenging questions, relishes doing so, the matter how hard those truths are, how complex the dilemmas are. But she combines that drive with an equally if not more powerful drive to be effective and to produce impact. And in my experience that truly is a rare combination. The first time i met sam, shes not going to remember this by glcm she was chairing a meeting and wires on the ottawa convention, sometimes known as the mine ban treaty, and i was alone at the time at the state department in this theme was quite striking. It was this incredibly tall, redheaded woman who was a wellknown human rights advocate chairing the discussion on arms control treaty and a room full of male military officers. And i suspect people had made a number of assumptions about her, about how she would run the meeting, which almost certainly was not the impression they left with that day. She had done her homework as she always did, but more than that she make clear that she wasnt there to advocate for the treaty even though her position was clear, she wanted to understand their perspective. She had studied the report, worked hard to unearth the data on these issues, and what she had were penetrating questions that make clear she was listening, wanted to understand what they thought about this but also she wasnt going to accept peoples views on faith. She wanted to be sure whatever the decision was on this issue of the discussions surrounding it would be rigorous. Moreover, characteristically, she knew and assumed everyone had noble intentions, were trying to achieve the objectives that they believed to be critically important to the National Security of the United States, but she was focused not only on that but also on the means for achieving those objectives and the human consequences of those means. And forcing an examination of those issues in a way i dont think anyone had get done in that room on that issue. And as a colleague you can help to see samantha is fierce, brilliant, self reflective, sometimes to a fault. Shes occasionally stubborn that shes generous and kind and empathetic while also being tough as nails when it comes to protecting people, and in her pursuit of an ethical and better society. But something that makes her particularly suited to be a little today and to promoting a dialogue between social science and policy is to focus on the human consequences of governmental action. If you read her book you will see this reflected. Shes constantly asking herself, particularly s ambassador to view an entry talks about this whether and how we are effectively integrating a concern for human consequences into our thought process, decisionmaking on Foreign Policy and the interNational Security. This may sound obvious for someone who has worked in government for years, i can tell you its not. Even if you recognize it as being critically important, its not easy to deal. When you recognize, sort of a traditional lenses that frequently simplify and ignore the consequences of our state to state interactions and on the human beings they catch, and i think in part it makes it easy to set and make these are decisions to do that but its also true that its challenging to find ways on the timelines you are making decisions, and in the institutional structures that we have two actually tap into outside sources that give you a sense of what the human consequences are in the moment that so critical. Yet today i think given the increasingly mobile interconnected world we live in where nonstate actors are frequently as powerful if not more powerful, frequently less accountable than states, decisionmaking that actually brings together and rakes down the barriers between those sort of governmental actors and the communities are working with the cross borders is more and more critical. And the human consequences we need to be taken into account are not simply the potential harms people may suffer as a consequence of Government Action on particular portions of the population but its also Frank Woolley the opportunity we can reveal and promote also how authoritarian societies can affect frankly affect the societies, the people that are living in those societies. And i think in short, submit this approach to thinking about these issues, its not only intellectually preferable, more likely to be pragmatic but its something we need to do and something i think Democratic Society have real competitive advantage on. Im so proud and honored to introduce Samantha Power for her lecture for this wonderful prize and i really appreciate the society has done this. Its remarkable, so thank you very much. [applause] thank you so much. Im so, so grateful to be a very thanks to the American Academy of political and social science, take ken prewitt for serving as president and for leading this incredibly important academy. And im looking forward to our discussion after. To tom who how did they all summer to get a topic for this lecture, and never did. So it will be a big surprise for everyone here. And to jessica for organizing this, which is no easy feat. Avril, i have to say more than a word about avril, my former colleague and dear friend. Avril i think brought to every governmental debate that i saw her participate in, and this is at the absolute highest levels of government, the freshest eyes of anyone i so work in government. There were no taboos. There were no dumb questions, and talk about rare. It turns out one of the things that constrains informed and rigorous policy debate is a a sense that some questions are offlimits or a sense certain things must be done a certain way. And while the position of National Security adviser is famously, i suppose the most stressful position there is in the National Security establishment, the secret, the bestkept secret, one of the best kept secrets in washington is that the deputy National Security adviser job is even more stressful because you are mikey, you know in the old cereal commercial. Everything that is hard comes to you, and she ran, avril ran the most, the fairest and most intensively determined and inclusive National Security process i ever saw. And then of course made a way to the cia was she brought her background in International Humanitarian law, and her regard for human consequences into that institution, and not only i think changed many dimensions of the things were done in the Intelligence Community but also won the first loyalty of fierce intelligence professionals just as she has ever shes worked in the government. Which the main thing i would say about avril is the unfailing decency that she offers as a human being, as a person, as a friend is what she wants to see reflected in american policy, American Public policy. I couldnt be more honored that if avril with one to introduce ecothanks very much. More about mrs. Moynihan, thank you for your support for this enterprise. She is here. Shes there. Nice to see you, and im just, could not be more honored to be receiving this award in your dad honor and couldnt be more pleased and proud as an american and as a person who also lives in the broader world that there is an award named for your dad, that every year we come together to think about your dad and his legacy. And so again im incredibly proud to be here. Avril drew a few alleged parallels between me and senator moynihan. I dont flatter myself to believe that a necessary belong in his league, despite again how pleased i am to be associated with them, but there are as avril noted a few parallels that i do acknowledge. So both Daniel Patrick moynihan and i do take pride in our irishness, and, but part of that is we, and going to stick about it in the present tense because hes such a large force in our world still today, but we carry with it an expectation, and irish expectation, that good things may not last and you all remember after president john f. Kennedy was shot, moynihan famously saying i dont think theres any point in being irish if you dont know that the world is going to break your heart eventually. And then he paused and added, i guess we thought we had a little more time, which is very moving and very poignant. I i guess i spend my days with that same sense of worry about the world, especially these days, but im just hoping we have a lot more time and not just a little more time. We both had the experience of, avril note of toggling between academia we would each professors and stints in public service, though he and a far more diverse range of roles in government and disciplines and academia than i. Serving in the white house and though and sensing a certain skepticism at times about insights that i might have drawn from social science or behavioral science or Political Science. I often wished that i could mobilize our retort as lively as moynihan could when he was being challenged. And, of course, the incident, that comes was quick to mike in this context is that in 1976 when he was challenging the new york incumbent senator james buckley, this is i guess his First Political race, and when senator buckley pointedly referred to in one of the debates professor moynihan from harvard, and then moynihan famously exclaimed with mock indignation, the mudslinging has begun. The mudslinging has begun. [laughing] no dirtier mud and then to be called professor in a political debate. We both believe in the essential role for ideas in the shaping of Public Policy, and also in the power of words. Never to diminish just the power of words. And finally i i feel one of the great overlap, but this one is with moras, the senators wife of 48 years, elizabeth moynihan. She often often said she married her husband because he was the funnies than she ever met. And i just want to say i feel the same way about my husband, Cass Sunstein, who is here today. Thanks for marrying me. You know about his books, but you dont know about his humor necessarily. Some of those books have little humor in them. So when one attempts to take the measure of moynihan, senator, ambassador, veteran, author of 18 books, 90 which he wrote while he was serving in the u. S. Senate, president ial counselor, cabinet member, sociologist, professor, and public intellectual, what may be most striking of all in our era of intense polarization is his fierce independence of mind and spirit, which persisted throughout his decades of public life. How inconceivable would it be today for someone to do what moynihan did, to get appointed to cabinet or subcabinet positions in four consecutive president ial administrations, kennedy, johnson, nixon and ford. A former teaching assistant of his at harvard, bill kristol, observed of moynihan, hes never in anybodys camp. A rarity today. So on the occasion of being recognized with this great honor, the honor of a lifetime really, id like to address a problem that greatly concerned moynihan when he served as u. S. Ambassador to the u. N. Under president ford, and that challenge, that concern of his was the future of democracy. So today i would like to examine first the contemporary state of democracy and its relative appeal around the world. Id like to discuss the rise of china and its implications for the future of democracy. And thirdly, i will argue that facing a future in which these two very different models, the democratic model and the chinese model, will coexist on this earth, i i would like to look t what we can and should do to enhance democracies prospects. So first on the state of democracy, back in the fall of 1975 with the american bicentennial approaching, moynihan having recently left his role as ambassador to india and taken up his post at the u. N. , spelled out his pessimism about the democratic model in the u. S. And around the world for an article in the public interest. What he wrote was, quote, liberal democracy on the american model increasingly tends to the condition of monarchy in the 19th century. A holdover form of government, one which persists in isolated or peculiar places here and there, and may even serve well enough for special circumstances but which has simply no relevance to the future, end quote. Moynihan continued, quote, it is where the world was, not where it is going, end quote. Now, for context we should recall the world as it was when moynihan offered this prediction. Across the globe only about 30 of the countries in the world were democracies at that point. From the middle of the 20th century until moynihan became u. N. Ambassador in 1975, a number of democracy in the world had actually remained relatively and remarkably unchanged. Some may be is understandable why moynihan went on to observe in the article that quote, increasingly, democracy is sen as an arrangement peculiar to a handful of north atlantic countries plus a few of their colonies, end quote. Moynihan was views, however, have been particularly influenced by his experiences as u. S. Ambassador to india. He arrived in new delhi in 1973 and during his two years in the country he witnessed the Worlds Largest democracy experiencing painful backsliding. In late 1974 as he prepared to leave india and returned to the u. S. To become u. N. Ambassador, he wrote in his journal quote, here in india, here liberty displays and an easy presence, and endangered species, a threatened environment that indian democracy to have to struggle to maintain itself is the natural condition of its being. All democracies have this struggle. What troubles me so is defined it struggled to maintain its reputation in the world. The heart has gone out of it. We no longer believe that liberty will prevail, not here, not i suspect much longer in western europe. Not i fear very much longer in the United States, end quote. Soon after, indiana Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had a state of emergency declared suspending elections, arresting lyrical poems and cracking down on Civil Liberties run the country. The emergency as he came to be known would last for over a year and a half. So moynihan believe that democracy was as he put it where the world was, not where it is going to ride from his lived experience. He was of course mistaken. The third wave of democratization was beginning just as he issued these dire predictions. Why moynihan was focus on india, an uprising was occurring in portugal. After 42 years of military dictatorship, the carnation revolution there led to a transition to democracy. What followed as all you know was three decades of democratic flowering around the world. By the time of moynihans death in 2003, the percentage of democracies in the world had more than doubled. Some 65 of the countries in the world, 117 out of 191, were democracies. And, of course, moynihan himself relished this development. Not long after the fall of the berlin wall, moynihan wrote to George Cannon quote, you must be so enjoying the spectacle of the world turning your way. Well, it only took half a century end quote. In the span of just a few decades, democracy have, the dominant form of government around the world. Today, however, gloomy prophecies resembling those that moynihan issued a half century ago have surfaced a new. We are confronting what has become known as the democratic recession. We are seeing a pronounced surge in support for populous National Figures around the world, major established democracies are currently on the defensive by the disillusionment of democracy around the world, intimidated it seems by chinas success and distracted by the everyday difficulty of conducting even a sick governance. Higher warnings that democracy is in crisis, even in its death spiral, have become almost inescapable. Think of the books that we are reading come how democracies die, how democracies and, the people versus democracy. Even cast contribute, candid happen here . Authoritative and the u. S. At least he had a question Margaret Madeleine albright, fascism, a warning Many Americans share the intuition that our democracy is inextricably in decline. Polls suggest a sizable percentage of the American Public has lost faith in democracy confiding, for example, example that 55 characterize democracy in the u. S. As week, 68 believe it is getting weaker. Holding of americans age 1829 find almost 2 3 are quote fearful about the future of democracy. In the United States. These sentiments are given additional credence about the this position and rhetoric of her current president who in addition to the assault on Democratic Institutions like the needy, the courts and his political Opposition Party at home has in terms of his Foreign Policy removed the reference to democracy from the state Department Mission statement, repeatedly proposed cutting billions from longstanding democracy promotion initiatives, and has shown greater affection for the leaders of the most repressive countries in the world that he has for our democratic allies. So is democracy doomed . I dont think so, but lets examine the facts as democracies are suffering more than a crisis of confidence. The Global Expansion of democracy, the third wave of democratization that begin with that carnation revolution in portugal has ended or call the experts and the rankings differ on the margins of exactly when this begin happening and they differ on how serious the trends are, the best studies and assessment of global democracy if you taken together, show that in the last ten to 15 years, democracy has experienced more setbacks and gains. This is a reversal of three decades of essentially uninterrupted progress and democratic gains. According to Freedom House, as many of you know we are not in the 13th Straight Year of freedom in decline around the world. And in the past three years it has been established democracies, those countries like the United States that are considered fully free in the Freedom House index which showed the worst setbacks. Instead of rule of law, something that the United States has been promoting for many decades or seeking to promote, the Carnegie Endowment has document how more than 70 governments in the last decade have instituted rule by law. Not rule of law, rule by law taking a number series measures to restrict Civil Society through legal means like regulation or the curbing of Financial Assistance to those organizations. Parties and politicians that were once at the periphery due to their extreme views, not occupy influential roles in many established democracies now from these more mainstream positions, that often demonize immigrants refugees, attack the press and do what they can to undermine the judiciary and the checks and balances that exist on centralized power. Today for example, 90 of the media in hungary is owned or controlled by allies of president obama and his president or bonn. In poland dickinson law and Justice Party came to power in 2015 and in 2018 the party passed a law that forced the retirement of long serving Supreme Court judges who would then replaced by allies of the ruling party. Critical reporting is not dismissed as sickness, not just by President Trump by leaders in dozens and dozens of countries. Weather in brazil or the philippines, rightwing populist who control the levels of government have already caused serious setbacks for open and democratic societies. And the most recent pew polling of Global Attitudes across 27 democracies has found overall more people are dissatisfied with our democracy is working in the country than satisfied. Now i would like to turn to the rise of china and at this fits into the picture. For those searching for an alternative, the most prominent out there is of course the authoritarian capitalism practiced in china. President xi has been explicit about chinas desire to provide an alternative model that does not imitate western values. He has said, quote, china offers a new option for of the countries and nations want to speed up their development while preserving their independence, end quote. The word independence here is short and the signal of the countries that china will not be putting its nose into their internal human rights practices. Although china has lifted millions of people out of poverty, its governance model is deeply disturbing aspects. Beijing has locked up between 800,002,000,000 chinese muslims in internment camps frame the measure as what it calls effective counterterrorism. It is of course has been many of the world snowpocalypse us including youtube, facebook, wikipedia edits traded desperate people fling gulags to north korea as criminals, not refugees seeking asylum. And in the most Orwellian Development perhaps, in the coming years china plans to assign a citizens board to add one of its people. This citizens score we use Artificial Intelligence to process a mix of information about chinese citizens movements, purchases, social media postings, religion, and the records of their family members and friends. The government will then use this continually updated score declassify citizens as safe, normal, or unsafe. This score would turn be used to determine everything from citizens access to jobs and social services to whether they should be picked up for preemptive questioning or be allowed to travel. Already the chinese cook has revealed that due to bad social credit, it has blocked its citizens from taking flights 17 million times. Under president xi, china has capitalized on its economic heft to turbocharge its diplomacy and its international development, two cornerstones of American Power since the end of world war ii, and tools we have used over the years to support the consolidation of democracies here chinas Foreign Affairs budget has doubled since 2013. This is is as the state Department Budget stagnates and as career diplomatically and as administration that is generally shunned their expertise and even the practice of diplomacy. Greatly enhancing chinese influence and now provides just as Much Development financing as the entire world bank. As of 2018, some 20 of african governments external debt was owed to china. At the United Nations the u. S. Remains the largest donor and at least for now wields the great influence. However, china overtook japan just this year as the second largest contributor to the u. N. Regular budget. Albury contributes more peacekeepers than any other prominent member of the Security Council. Gallup polling across 133 countries shows president xi is now viewed as favorably as or more favorably than the american the president. And while people around the world are more or less evenly split about whether they hold a favorable or unfavorable view of china, its favorability numbers are relatively high, particularly in the developing world and among younger generations. In countries like tunisia, nigeria and kenya, all countries the u. S. Would like to see continue their progress in showing up Democratic Institutions, use of china today are markedly positive. Meanwhile, in brazil, mexico, poland and even australia, doubledigit gaps exist between those in this 1829 range whether a favorable view of china, those of older generations, particularly over 50, who are much more skeptical. Authoritarian capitalism is in its way ascendant as roberto stephan has pointed out, within the next five years the total of gdp of countries that Freedom House considers undemocratic will surpass that of western democracies. The combined economies of democratic countries like the u. S. , germany, france and japan, they write will be smaller than those of china, turkey, saudi arabia. The implications for the world are of course serious, a powerful argument for democracy has always been accountable governance and Economic Development go hand in hand. For leaders wavering on whether to become more open and citizens decide what kind of society they hope to build, the appeal of democracy has always been tied in part to its ability to deliver for peoples quality of life and economic wellbeing. Chinas will document economic success combined with the Global Awareness of the growing inequality inside democracies has complicated this longstanding argument. We do not yet know how aggressive beijing will become in trying to use its leverage and its assistance be on its borders to nudge countries on the fence, or democracies that are backsliding, anymore repressive direction. We do not know whether they deem it in their interest to, to paraphrase a former american president , make the world safe for autocracy and authoritarianism. We dont know if that is their aim. During my time at the United Nations i saw competing impulses among chinese diplomats. On the one hand, chinas internal stability remained its governments overriding concern. Over many decades u. S. Diplomats have recognized that our National Security is enhanced by a more democratic world in which we have more democratic partners to invest in meetings shared challenges. China sees domestic security as the most Important Foundation of its National Security. Yet in a number of ares i also saw china stepping in and stepping up to influence countries on issues with the United States has enduring interests, and now when the United States has vacated a leadership role, that tendency has been dramatically accelerated. While many expect china to actively pull countries in its direction, to not be agnostic about form of governance of the country is providing assistance to, have, others like this during arnie west end argued xi jinpings china is nationalist, not universalist. The Chinese Government has a lot on its hands covered in a country of 1. 4 billion people. It may present itself as an alternative model to western democracy but for the time being its main approach may be to show that the china system works better in china and america system works in america. Regardless, our former colleagues from the Obama Administration, Jake Sullivan and Kurt Campbell wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, quote, china may ultimately present a stronger ideological challenge than the soviet union did even if it does not explicitly seek to export its system. If the International Order is a reflection of its most powerful state, then chinas rise to superpower status will exert a pull towards autocracy, end quote. China is also not the only country polling the system in that direction. Today, for more players are on the scene actively promoting their political visions and did so during the third wave of the 1970s to the 1990s. Many. Many of them are operating with a range of impressive tools that match or exceed established democracies are currently offering, develop and eight, poetry systems, diplomatic care, and. Part three of all of this, what can be done, and here i have a few ideas, obviously the challenges that ive laid out for going to require more than a few ideas to be met, but for starters the most critical step americans to take is to focus on our own but deeply divided democracy. There are many impediments that stand in the way of improving the health of our democracy. Bigmoney in politics, gerrymandering, restrictions on Voting Rights, downright corruption, and very much way to all of the above, deep and ever deeper polarization. It sometimes seems not to fully penetrated just quite how destructive this polarization is, and a difficult it has made meeting any problem, much less making a dent in a problem as big as a Global Human Rights recession. The salience of political identities in our country is now far greater than the salience of all we have in common as americans, as classmates, as neighbors, as citizens. Whenever a fresh issue arises we see almost an instant polarization now. Just this week one of the nations leading opinion pollsters, the institute at monmouth university, found only 40 of republicans believed that President Trump had talked to ukraine president zelensky about investigating joe biden. Only 40 of republicans believe that. This means the majority of republicans said trump either didnt talk to sylvan ski or they could be sure. But this is in spite of the fact the president stated openly that he did and despite the fact the Trump White House released a partial transcript of the call between them. These somewhat baffling divisions are of course mirrored in our congress. Polarization has made the legislative branch immensely ineffectual and even irrelevant when were faced with a major challenge when a gunman kills 58 people at an outdoor concert, the baseline expectation is that our Congress Wont do anything to try to decrease the risk of future attacks. It used to be International Treaties were ratified with bipartisan support in congress, but that has changed. The bush administration, george w. Bush, ratified 163 International Treaties. Some without of avril haines. The Obama Administration can we manage 20 International Treaties. The Trump Administration so far just nine. On this front, the front of polarization that is, i was profoundly disheartened after learning of the Supreme Courts five for pulling this year that federal courts could not put a stop to partisan gerrymandering. This was a rare opportunity to do something that wouldve had a real impact of health of our democracy. Instead, the majority, majority on the court said it was acceptable for politician to continue choosing their voters rather than having voters choose the politicians. Over half of congressional districts nationwide are still drawn by legislatures whose elected representatives tend to prioritize keeping their jobs over other priorities. Thus, North Carolina during the 2018 midterms, for example, democrat and republican candidates each one about half of the votes cast. Yet republicans ended up winning ten of the states 13 seats in the house. Manipulating district boundaries for political gain is of course practiced by democrats, to. Notoriously in states like maryland and new jersey. As a result of all this gerrymandering, primaries in that being the only important election in so many districts, and increased importance of the primary often favors candidates who represent the extremes. This can still be fixed but it is up to state courts and legislatures to write this structural wrong. Second recommendation, as we enter a time in which broadly put, these two models of government are competing for adherence domestically and geopolitically, we must rebuild our diplomatic corps and put ourselves in a position to rejuvenate and strengthen alliances among democracies. At present the pentagon and Armed Services have more than 225,000 american personnel deployed outside the United States. The state department, around 9000. Indeed, the pentagon famously has only slightly fewer people serving in marching bands and the state department has diplomats. We still do not have ambassadors posted post in more than 40 countries around the world. The battle between the democratic and authoritarian model is going to play out in the International Domain over the coming decades, and we need to be resourced for that battle. In the years after the arab spring, i believe that we and our allies should have done more to help, for example, a country like tunisia as it tried to consolidate the hartford democratic gains achieved by the protest movement that began in 2010. Today when a new leader in ethiopia negotiates peace with its neighbor, releases political prisoners, opens up freedom of the press and appoint a cabinet that is 5050 gender balance declaring his ultimate goal is quote to ensure that the a democratic election takes place in ethiopia, we and other democracies should be supporting his agenda. In sudan with an incredibly courageous and persistent protest movement forces the military leadership in to sign a powersharing agreement, we should be working with them to improve the chances of getting military leaders to hold to that agreement. Even now with the Trump Administration awol and also lacking in credibility and promoting human rights and democracy, the u. S. Congress can play an Important Role by using the laws we have on the books, including the bipartisan 2016 global magnitsky asked that sanctions human rights abuses around the world, and afford assistance act which requires executive branch cut off assistance to governments that take power through military coup. As Tom Carruthers has recently argued, the congress can also pass a new law that would limit u. S. Aid to leaders who get rid of constitutional term limits, a growing trend. Third and final recommendation is that we have to get our mojo back and we have to be prepared to defend democracy. Taken together, the decline in freedom around the world, which is borne out by the data, and the inexorable rise of china, has deepened a confidence gap that seems to have overtaken our world, our authoritarians seem to be strutting around, although their model, i will argue in the second rests on fragile foundations. Democrats meanwhile at times seem to be running for cover. I confess i bring an inherent skepticism the sweeping fatalism and to overwhelming optimism. When i graduate from college act in 1992, a book about the global triumph of liberalism, the end of history and the last band, has been a month on the best sellers list. I gave you earlier the list of the bestselling books on the perils to democracy that we are meeting today. Today as our reading list suggest, people have begun speaking of liberal democracies demise with the same certainty that people back when i graduated from college talked about liberal democracies inevitable triumph. It seems like we should not make the mistake of replacing one narrative about an extra ability with its a doomsday opposite. My own view is a knot was then everything where confronting here in our country and in other democracies around the world, we have the better model. The wish of logic to churchills claim that democracy is the worst form of government except all those of the forms that a been tried from time to time. And in autocracies, economic grh is likely to be impeded by stagnant stateowned enterprise, a lack of transparency in the economy. Even in china weve already seen growth is slowing. One wonders how secure what investors deal over time with the arrest of expatriates and absence of due process and property rights. Autocrats as weve seen through history often overreach. They tend not to hear from a critical voices in their inner circles and often prefer the company of sycophants. If you work for president xi in china or present or bond in hungry you likely be reluctant to be the bearer of bad news to your leader. These are not systems that embrace the logic of the team of rivals. In the military the most capable officers in such systems may be less likely to rise in the most loyal. The lack of accountability when you have endless terms or your president for life, can read all kinds of decay. Because ethnic religious and National Identity is often stymied in illiberal systems,t frequently leads to social unrest and even violence. While innovation today is flourishing in some sectors within certain autocracies of their trading systems, we have reason to question whether innovation will be undermined in the longterm by the absence of freedom of speech and the presence of so much fear. And finally one of the biggest factors explaining the appeal of illiberal more popular leaders and democracies is inequality and the feeling of many that they are being left behind by their governments, and by society. This trend may well be one that only increases with automation and some other structural features of our economy. But there is no reason to expect the system that concentrate power at the very top will more equally distribute benefits or will not leave people behind in the age of automation. And even today we must remember that democracy remains the dominant form of government in countries around the world. Some 55 55 of states that the democracies and they are home to more than half of the global population. Moreover, despite the very real and worrisome backsliding, if you look at all four of the most widely used and accepted databases that ss democracy over time, since with so Many Political scientists here, Freedom House, the policy project and the coding of democracy, the percentage of democratic countries in the world according again to those is either at or at least near its alltime high, reached just after the end of the cold war. The reason that can be true at the same time you are saying all the backsliding is that countries are still considered democratic even as you see setbacks in terms of rights in june and the various freedom indexes. I would also call attention to a trend that has a quite registered yet it seems in our public imagination that political participation is now increasing almost every region of the world. Voter turnout is up. A number of people who say theyre following the news, engage in politics and joining Political Parties is up. By many measures the engagement and participation of women in politics has increased substantially. The proportion of the population willing to participate in Peaceful Demonstrations is also rising and this is not only in democracies, this daily. Weve seen recently in turkey the people of istanbul delivering a stunning rebuke to president erdogan twice in a row, first collecting and men of the political opposition as mayor in his home city and pace, and then went Erdogan Party faced a revote to try to manipulate the results, the population elected the opposition candidate again by a margin almost 60 times that of the initial victory in the first race. In hong kong people of all ages are standing up for the rights and freedoms that are central to their city. In moscow, thousands upon thousands of russians have taken to the streets repeatedly this past summer to demand free and fair elections. Despite arrest and harassment. In slovakia, a young environmental lawyer who has never held Political Office and who was vocal on womens and lgbtq right became president this past summer loudly proclaiming her support for european integration and triumphing over entrenched and reactionary Political Parties. Her victory showed, she said, quote, that value such as humanism, solidarity and truths are important to our society, end quote. Six budget after algerians first took the to the streets to police leaked a political reform, the coaches long time resign and after trying to rush the president election, the countries in the leaders have bowed to public pressure postpone that election despite the stomach the tens of thousands of people purchase made in weekly demonstrations have held fast to their demand a democratic transition period sudanese protesters, i mentioned earlier, toppled the once untouchable president , now standing trial. And were seeing elements of this of course in the United States. The 2018 midterm elections saw the highest overall turnout forr a midterm in 50 years. College students or than doubled their turn up from four years earlier. The surge in political activation of young people manifested also in the marches for climate, for addressing Climate Change and for addressing gun control shows that the next generation is engaged in pushing back against the status quo. As my Kennedy School colleague has recently shown with her passing research on social movements, quote, we live in a decade in which there have been more mass nonviolent movements around the world than at any time in recorded history, end quote. But it highlights the explosion of participation. Pointing to developments like the ones ive described saying the surge of engagement is one of the defining changes currently taking place on the global stage. So all we can say with certainty, it seems, is that the future of our societies and the role that governments and citizens will play in shaping them is being actively contested. Despite all of the challenges and setbacks, people appear to have an inexhaustible aspiration to hold their leaders accountable. Its far too early to write the story of democracys fate in the 21st century. When moynihan despaired about the future of democracy as i indicated earlier, he wrote, again, quote. Its where the world was, not where it is going, end quote. But in closing, i would stress that where the world is going is not already scripted. It will be decided by the resilience, the will and actions of the people who comprise the countries in that world. Notwithstanding the structural challenges before us, when it comes to a cause as vital as the future of democracy, we must resist the temptation to spend our time admiring the problem. Rather we must urgently work for the world we seek, i thank you. [applaus [applause] its around in my head in terms of where we want to cut into this. Could you take us all the way bock to moynihans reservations . What was he seeing, what signal was he picking up that led to that rather inexpected, it could all crumble . Well, i dont of much to add beyond what i described which was he was watching in india. They were on the verge of a state of emergency. Hes also seeing ethnic and religious tensions flaring up in big ways, but above all, 70 countries in the world were not democratic and it didnt change until the founding of the u. N. If he were here tonight and we were querying him about it, what were the social signs, what were they saying . Whose fault is it if were not able to hold onto the democracies that weve created . Where does the intellectual Foundation Come for preserving liberal democracy if not somewhat out of our investigations and our arguments and so forth and so on . Well, you know, im not a social scientist or a political scientist, but i think what i tried to do when i was in government and what i tried to do today is draw on the incredible works thats being done by scholars throughout our country and throughout the world who are looking into the trends and trying to drill into them and understand where they come from. I think there are a lot of different aspects. One is the question of citizenship and political participation which of course, voting and Voting Rights and all the dimensions of voting. You know, its the case as many of you know that 9 of the people who voted for barack obama in 2012 shifted to voting for donald trump in 2016, but moreover, 7 of the people who voted for barack obama in 2012 stayed home in 2016, so these trends are kind of up and down and they can be events that motivate political participation, but understanding those individuals and what is motivating them i think is really important. Finally, youre seeing scholars, i think, turn to also what has been a very unaccountable and understudied sector of our society, which is the tech world. Alongside you also see regulators paying attention to the tech world in the face of public outrage, but far more scholarship can be done on that. You now have at its height of its economic worth, facebook was worth more than 167 of the 193 countries in the u. N. I mean, it has more adherence than christianity and yet, while we have scholars who study low government, state government, and again, understanding facebook as a player akin to one of the most powerful countries in the world and yet, without any kind of democratic accountability within it, i think is an example of where scholars can go. The reason i come back to it a little bit is that we in the social sciences have an enormously robust half century from when pat would have said we were saying. It started in the 60s coming out of the war effort. We have some status and we begin to really dig into certain social welfare problems of the United States and so forth. My friend norman tells me that jim coleman was the person who launched big science for the social sciences, 600,000 students, 60,000 schools, teachers, so forth on the racial crisis. And then pat was very involved in that as a matter of fact. He organized the meeting at columbia, at harvard because there was some skepticism about the colemans findings and the judgment that moynihan and the people he brought in was to know he was right. And it was a really major breakthrough and remember what coleman reports, that the issue is community and family. We cant solve the education problem by just throwing money at it. We really have to have this and so forth. But just from that became then a huge enormous explosion of social science, doing field experiments and so forth. And yet, i guess i want to put it this way. Somehow we must have failed. I dont overstate that, but we were surprised by the 2008 recession. We didnt see it coming. How in the world could we have missed trump, Something Like that, that big and that dramatic and that transformative . We werent sitting around tables like this worrying about that happening to our society ten years ago, three years ago, four years ago. Well, you know, i think every there are a number of dimensions in which we in the Obama Administration were blindsided also by major events internationally that i think are analogous to what youre describing. I think its absolutely fair to say no one saw the arab spring coming. This was a tinder box waiting to explode. The extent to which putins grievances were going to translate into militarized aggression of the extent that he carried out. So, you know, on issue after issue, were being surprised. I dont think that that is a summary indictment of generations of work by social scientists by any means. Its caused though to ask why in these particular cases we were blindsided and so, for example, this is not my area so i feel a little out of my depth here, but one conclusion that one could draw particularly about how both in government and here perhaps we were blind sided by the degree of support a candidate like trump could draw and thats why i focused on the shift from obama to trump. That delta is a very significant delta and you know, that might be cause to ask ones selfare we doing enough applied work. Are we identifying the places where different dimensions of globalization and the sort of rub of our International Economic approach and our domestic economic policies and the absence of the sufficient safety net, where those issues are hitting home. You know, even when i look back, i think why didnt we see that the ipo epidemic in a way was itself a preview on one level of just the despair and you know, alongside the despair and rage that can often exist. There can be a question of whether one is too cloistered in Foreign Policy and were asking as kind of a constituency of leadership in the world seems to be dwindling. The question we ask ourselves and this applies to people who do International Relations and Foreign Policy relations and dimensions of Political Science and international history, have we just be talking to one another . We missed the ways in which various mistakes that have been made by successful administrations in Foreign Policy has brought about such widespread disillusionment. Have we missed the way that war has become conflated in some peoples minds or the negative effects of free trade have been with conflated with u. S. Leadership in the world that makes them skeptical of u. S. Leadership . I think theres a lot of looking inward that needs to be done given the predicament that we face, but i think to focus on any one individual or even trumpism would be, you know, a mistake and would lead us on an efemoral journey. The larger question is, are we interacting with the world sufficiently and are our questions, not everybody has to do this. I mean, theres is still a rol an Important Role for theory, but are our graduate students getting out and doing the field work that they need to do so that their theories are tested by an understanding of real people . The one thing i would add, also, in the spirit of not despairing because im not sure how much good it does at this point, also, in addition to, i dont think it being warranted, but you know, i happen to be married to Cass Sunstein who started as a constitutional lawyer and almost stumbled into the field of behavioral economics and behavioral science and oh, my gosh, i mean, to have the privilege of seeing what behavioral science has been able to do in the field of Public Policy to improve outcomes for citizens, im sorry, its been mind blowing and examples, you know, studying you know, why are certain subgroups of low income people so unlikely to fill out Financial Aid forms, spored to be able to go to college because it would be dependent on Financial Aid, instead of just assuming they dont want to go to college, theyre too lazy to fill out the form for Financial Aid, you actually talk to people. It turns out they were completely overwelcomed by the length of the form. And what the Obama Administration did with cass and others behind it is pre populate the form and shrink the length to three pages. You know, if you know in School Cafeterias the problem of obesity derives in part for the ease of access that people have to chocolate chip cookies and to french fries, if you actually reorder where the fruit and vegetables are in the cafeteria and make it much harder to access, you know, the unhealthier food, it has a precipitous it brings about a precipitous decline for calorie intake for people in public schools. On issue after issue, you just see data and its impact in how people are crafting Public Policy and its awesome. So, but your question is fair, but, i mean, i dont think we need to go so broad. I think we can just look at what are the set of questions we wish wed been asking and what can we learn about ourselves that we werent asking those that will have relevance or the set of questions we should be asking today. No, certainly, one of the things we take great pride in as an opportunity of scholars and it did loosen up the borders of economics somewhat which was tightened on some of its own models and so forth and the models didnt quite predict. Anything . And you know, and the humanities went through this remarkable period of deconstructionism where they talked to themselves only and had the internals to their discipline and they werent active and present, if you will. And the whole, you used the word practical, but also, moral. Weve gone through we dont talk about morals very much as social scientists and i think thats probably going to have to come back. After challenging you on something you said in your book about selfrighteousness about yourself. I dont think you were selfrighteous, i think you cared deeply about genocide. Thats my favorite kind of challenge. Well, but you were right to go after moral genocide and you can project in a way that looks like youre impugning the values of others and when youre in policy i dont mean like to sound like did i dont think that thats my problem. I think to be fairminded and basically to be effective, also, to anticipate what other values, and even other, you know, kind of moral precepts others are bringing and then meet them on their terms as well. Thats all i really meant, yeah. I think one other thing, actually, just because, you know, again, i dont think im in as i wouldnt despair i think quite as much as your questions suggest, maybe some here are. I wasnt aware of that of the extent of that. But one thing that did really worry me was i was out at stanford and i gave the tanner lectures, maybe a year, a year ago, and i learned, and i dont have the numbers in my head, somebody probably teaches at stanford and knows these, but massive migration from social sciences into Computer Science at that university. As a liberal arts graduate and as somebody who is so thankful, you know, that i didnt sort of bureau myse bureau burrow myself in and think analytically and that serves me and we have two kids and you know, raising these people i hope are fluid in the sciences and indeed may even fall in love with the sciences, but they would always be able to see the value of theater and literature and music. And anyway, i was having that reaction and then i had a great conversation with man who was my colleague professor, jeremy weinstein, deputy when i was u. N. Ambassador. He was a brilliant guy and the master of applying i dont know if theres anybody in Foreign Policy better than he is. , but he was in the same kind of moment, my gosh, whats happening . I used to have classes of this size and theyre skinnied down. Im going to coteach an ethics class and were going to make sure that every Computer Science graduate cycles through this line of programming, his work was on comparison politics in sub saharan africa. And it was a leap and he almost had to take a virtual sabbatical, a sabbatical of the soul to take himself into that world. But thats also an example of what we can do in a moment like this. And the sort way to describe int interdisciplinalty, our students are voting with their feet. What can we learn about where our owe site is going and how that should affect our teaching, which we sometimes dont talk enough about and the lines of inquiry that we pursue in our research. There are many in the room who have a lot to say on this question. So im going to open it up. I see im surrounded by political scientists and i want to start with one, bob cullha cullhane. So i thought it was a great talk, samantha. Thanks, bob. And i wanted to ask you if you were interpret i interpret your talk as a call for renewed selfconfidence about democracy and about social science. That is that we should stop being too much kavetching about problems. Admiring the problem. Admiring the problem. And both in Foreign Policy stating more seriously the superiority of democracy, after all sums. And thats coming out and that we should be thinking about social science as cass has, as a way of improving the outcome of a democracy, do i interpret you right . I think so. I couldnt have said it better myself, but there are so many dimensions of this, just to tease it out. You know, both you and i think we even talked about this, a book that i got a lot out of in recent years is graham allisons book entitled destined for war and i know its controversial and people have different views of it. But one of the things that really struck me in reading that book and maybe this is one. Critiques, i guess, is we know the flaws in our own in the brittleness of our own system and authoritarian societies are often so closed to us that, you know, the kind of thought bubble of president xi and what hes confronting in his society and we look at hong kong and think creeping china, not one book seller in hong kong now can sell a book critical of the Chinese Government. You know, the use now of lethal tools in the suppression of those protests. But you know, part of this question is how do we also get inside of i think if we maybe part of my proposition, but its tentative because i havent done it. If we got inside and understood better, you know, their sort of cost benefit calculus, their forecast for themselves, what they are managing and i only mention grahams book because you know, one of as he forecasts chinas rise, he does some justice to what the Chinese State is having to navigate within its own borders, but you know, really digging into that would be another source, i think, it would be a comparator to what were to the flaws that were experiencing here because it would be nice if we could not only be more selfconfident, but have grounds to be more selfconfidence. Dig in empirically in a way that would, you know, lead us to see and i give you other examples, i didnt have time to go into this, its again not my area, but on the question of gerrymandering, i could have gone in the wake of the Supreme Court horrific democracy degrading decision, seeing what north korean north korean north caroli carolina sorry, this is my problem when you drag me into Domestic Social science. But what the North Carolinaen institutions are doing in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, okay if not them us. And it was the North Carolina judges that cited the dissent in the gerrymandering case with the map. Maine now has a law that basically makes your second voice count in a manner, it was just passed, in a manner that really should help crowd out the extremes on both sides of the ballots because an extremist maybe gets may get a lot of votes, but may not get a lot of second votesment and votes. And so again, digging into these remedies and experiments going on at all levels of our democracy and making those more broadly known so it isnt i feel in the last few years weve been in a doom loop of the problem and salience and when i saw a doctor on chirps vaccines, somebody saw the article four or five days ago and said science is but one voice in the room on the question of vaccine, but one voice at the table. Its easy to focus on our problems, but to look again at the experimentation and that the ways in way people are trying to look at different dimensions of polarization and render at a local or state level our democracy more effective. Maybe one or two others. I would love to get with janet, do you have anything youd like to put in this . No pressure. Okay. Fine, then not to worry. The problem is, i cant see, the lights are such that my Maura Moynihan wants to ask a question and she makes herself heard like her pop. First of all, i want to congratulate you, samantha, for this most wonderful speech. I think everyone would agree its brilliant and amazing like you always are. And my 90yearold mother liz sends her regards and wishes she could be here, shes 90 and travel is difficult and Peter Galbraith returned from syria and i thought id make that public. And china, im glad you addressed that in your speech, couldnt happen without collusion from the western powers and Shocking Facts coming to light how chinese firms on wall street are refused to be audited and wall street lets them. That chinese steals 600 billion of intellectual property a year. If india, japan did that, theyd pay a price. And china would never have its human rights questioned at the u. N. And i went to communist china and chairman mao was still alive and the cultural revolution, thanks to my father, and i found it shocking that the west has given communist china this easy pass so theyre very much responsible for the rise of this authoritarian capital model and where do you think its going, especially given the uprising in hong kong . Which i fully support. Thanks. Thank you also for your very kind words and again, just to reiterate how honored i am to be associated with your dad. But notwithstanding your kind words, your comments to the west also implicate me because i worked for a pretty powerful western government for eight years and indeed, worked daytoday at the Security Council of course, with china, a permanent member of the Security Council which has the detail. And so you know, to address what youre describing, on one level i think you have a point which is that when it comes to a country as powerful as china and even when it comes to a country far less powerful, like saudi arabia, there have been these taboos in american Foreign Policy that have caused us i mean, sometimes its not whether were confronting or not confronting, its whether we do it publicly or privately. In the case of china, i think part of whats happened is the interdependence of our economies, which is a very, very different sort of structure of competition than it was when the cold war was on and when your dad was vocal against the soviet union and other human rights abusers, our economy is also very dependent on what happens in china and so, as you contemplate in 2019, lets say, i wont even look back at the last decade. But the measures you will take with trump confrontational approach, that has bearing on the lives of American Workers and it has bearing on the prices of American Goods and it now is having bearing on the slowing of the American Economy at a time when people are already still or are still reeling from the lasting effects of the last downturn in the economy. So i dont disagree with you about the problematic reticence over many, many years about what happens inside china and i think my own view is that in this in these decades ahead where we have the two very powerful countries with very different systems that our democratic model and hopefully, again, if we get on track a little better than we have been of late, you know, notwithstanding Racial Injustice and exclusion and inequality here. None of the less the fact that we have checks and balances and freedom of religion and the rest, that these are going to be a comparative advantage in a competition of some kind between these two models. But at the same time, i can tell you from having worked at the Security Council and with china, theres almost no problem in the world, global problem of which most of the problems that face us are global now, that we can solve without china and so, again, one of the things thats bringing kids into the streets and having them activate around politics and wanting to change the system and render it more effective is Climate Change. Were not going to be able to deal with Climate Change simply by yelling at china. I couldnt get a single peacekeeper deployed to prevent Sexual Violence against with i am in a war zone or recruitment of child soldiers if i couldnt get my chinese counterpart on board because they have the veto. Thats a structural problem in the International System. You can be mad at the International System for being that way, but china in our domestic debate, seemingly the only thing that republicans and democrats can agree on is the badness of china. If you listen to members of the administration and certainly republicans in congress, its kind of a like a, you know, its a stalking horse now and it makes everybody feel at least we can unite on something. Week we can unite on china, and thats fine, but we also have to work with china and look out for our own interests and were entangled with china. Learning to walk and chew gum and challenge that government when its appropriate to do so, more than we have, i think youre right in the past, but while also carving out space to have a Strategic Partnership on issues we cant do anything about on our own. Im sorry, were on our deadline right now. The remaining thing to do this evening with you is to welcome you to the fellowship of the American Academy and there are quite a few of them here tonight, altogether only 117. And so, its a tricky thing, but obviously the moynihan awardee is a welcome member. Thank you, thank you so much. And thank you. [applause]. [applause] and for a truly stimulating and wonderful presentation. Thank you, thank you so much. [applaus [applause]. [inaudible conversations] the house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from washington d. C. And around the country. So you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Government. And live now for remarks from former government officials and policy experts with the latest developments in syria and President Trumps decision to withdraw u. S. Troops. This comes to us from the Hudson Institute in washington d. C. Live coverage here on cspan2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning. Can everybody hear me . Okay. My name is ali rogin im with the pbs news hour covering Foreign Affairs and as a journalist, i want to say im grateful to the Hudson Institute for convening this panel to discuss what is a rapidly developing, as we all know, situation on the syrianur
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.