Unbound, and this new one of course speaks t to a very wide d a significanband of significanty in our politics, a subject thats been an area thats been a subject of an enormous amount sought in arguments in many years, the question of nationalism of the nation and what it is in our politics, its connection to some of these forces and threats that have been driving the politics of the west in recent years. Our format will be very simple. We will hear a little bit about the book and he and i will then discuss the few minute minutes t opened up to questions from you. So, please lets welcome rich. [applause] enqueue everyone. It is a pleasure to be here. Thank you for making the time. I will share with you what has been my favorite moment from my book tour so far. It came very early on and on the second day at an npr interview. Npr has a practice i like to think of as professor ring. So, what they do thi did is thee no artist is and you give your take on history or policy, then they have a professor on like in the middle of your presentation or right at the end and the role of the professor is to say basically that yo youre an ignoramus and loud but an npr listener distinctively believes anything that is said in the tone by a person with some authority and credentials, so therefore you were officially deemed and everyone can go home happy are you that this is sort of like the npr equivalent of what happens on the Jerry Springer show with the babys mom comes on to compound the fathers of everybodys been waiting for it. I have this extensive pre interview preparation must have lasted two days in preparation for this npr program, and i really appreciate how much care they take with it so everything was set to go into the morning of some of you are desperately trying to get in touch with me, what is it, what do you want, we want to know is it okay if we have a professor on. Okay i know what youre doing. Its fine. Its fine, you can have a professor on. So, im going with the interviewer for a while and clearly her head is basically exploding. She cant believe im saying. I say the basic propositions of nationalism or so basic really that most people when you scratch the surface are a nationalist in some form or other is saying its not necessarily synonymous with hatred and bigotry, im saying more than that. Im saying nationalism really gave us the modern democracy. Okay, lets go to break and we need to hear from there professor. They bring on the professor that is an idiosyncratic sophisticated way of talking. An accent originally from russia and after some preliminaries, she says you know, everyone in the modern world is a nationalist and infect nationalism created the modern democracy and youll see the host she can believe it, shes taken aback and she says are you agreeing and it turned out in this case npr had done sufficient research because the professor is a woman named leah green fouled whose an extraordinary scholar of nationalism and it turned out i had read her most important of fire to writing my own called out of some bypass to modernity slated to enter the industry actually, im agreeing with her. [laughter] her arguments were crucial to my thinking on this topic so at least this ones npr had a professor to sulfated wa thoughy gratifying to me at least in a small minded way. So, let me give you five propositions about nationalism and then sit down and we will talk and take any questions. So, first proposition. Nationalism is very old. Its natural, its very powerful. Empires throughout the ages tried to eliminate it unsuccessfully, totalitarian ideologies tried to and to give you an example of how bold and deep the feeling is, you can go to one of historys greatest monsters, joan of arc. She has a vision and her fathers garden from an angel that she is going to liberate france from the english. English kings at this time have a fixation with ruling not just england about france. The english line originally comes from france of course the province in france, normandy and the english had been attempting to put an english air on the phone. Francis precipitating the 100 years war which is fought in france and is a debacle for the french by some estimates the population declined by half. Its ravaged by famine and disease and combat and this had been going on for about 75 years and have the aspect of a civil war in france, in addition to the english occupation. Because of the willpower that is difficult to fathom, she somehow convinces the french authorities that she should be able to pursue this vision and mission that she has and she ends up in camps with french groups outside of the city of new orleans and she sends messages to the english troops. She says i am a lawyer. I will give you a fair warning im going to chase you all, one and all to france and if you dont leave, im going to kill you all. Just want to let you know. Then she sends more messages and finally the last one she shoots oveover in an arrow and says lo, im serious, this is my last warning. And the english troops obviously must have been these guys that took it without the seriousness that you would expect, completely squirmed her and her messages, shattered across insults at her, more news from the french and she takes this the way an average teenage girl would. She is insulted and cries tears of outrage and shame. Then she does with no teenage girl in history has ever done before or since. She leads the french troops into battle riding a white horse carrying a banner with the image of christ sitting in judgment and chases the english from. And astonishingly enough, she succeeds in. The left runs out at some point she is betrayed by a french force allied with the undertaking trial of her that you might expect is not very fairminded. Its all based on finding her guilty within inordinate amount of time she declares the name of christ going through this ordeal and they spread her ashes in the river 19yearsold. This could be no more memory of this bizarre incident. And in fact as we all know, the opposite is the truth because joan had become a symbol of her nation and of its independence. The. Charles de gaulle himself a in honor of joan. Thats nationalism and National Feeling in a nutshell. Its part of the mainstream of the american tradition. There was a nation prior to 1776 and of th the essence of the revolution was to say that nation had its own right and claims and should govern itself. Without the nationalism of hamilton and washington and founders who believe we couldnt just be a series of sub states vulnerable to foreign powers around us we need a strong and capable National Government and we dont geifwe dont get victoe civil war. You can see the nationalistic symbols running through the century with fdr and reagan. To sell the program h settle tha democratic nationalist, and in world war ii i defy anyone on any part of the spectrum to read his inaugural address area that there were a lot of inaugural address as it is hard to keep track but if you read the third one isnt moved by the sentiments about the nation or has not been moved by his which donald trump read on the anniversary of normandy several months ago that begins the pride of a nation tha the nation thatt out on a mighty endeavor and the fact both fdr and reagan had access to this sentiment and feeling and it goes t indigo asa fairly classic phenomenon. Both parties in different ideologies have access. Third proposition that america is not just an idea. Both sides automatically save the way joe biden has an idea or lindsey graham, its wrong or you should be skeptical of it. America is not just an idea. Says im glad you asked. On. Im from book three chapter four. That is until it happens. A more defensible version of the notion is that america is just about civic nationalism thats about equality and citizenship and if it is a big part of the nation that it doesnt represent all of it and the fact that they are thicker than the ideas and ideals and their book on culture the way to illustrate this point in a hypothetical if you imagine tonight and africanamerican meeting a White American on the steps of the paris opera house instantly these two people, it doesnt matter whether they have different ideologies come in different parts of the country, they have more in common than Anyone Around them. They share a one which so they can instantly communicate. They probably dressed the same, like the same food, same founders, same heroes and enormous stalk of common cultural assumptions and references to extend. Tonight the germans around them dont say he must be an american. They say hes loud, boisterous, friendly, hes an american. So, these are cultural markers that set us apart from other people and account for the fact that we have more communication, easier communication and attachment to one another than other people around the world. For the propositioproposition rd is just underline the importance of culture and how important it was that the very beginning of the settlement of north america when the puritans came to massachusetts in the colony they brought with them the charter r that they have gotten from the king of england to govern themselves. They exploited a loophole, theres a loophole that allowed them to bring them to the shores which they wanted to because they wanted the assurance of having a document setting out their selfgovernment in their own position. They verpossession. They very quickly worshiped their own way, very quickly established their own mode of govern off to the liking of the people around the king who began to urge him or dont you go back and take the charter. That 140 years before the english Royal Authority led by independent minded and bat in my boston massachusetts there was barely a revolt against Royal Authority centered in boston massachusetts led by stubborn minded people this is how the culture grew in this country we can also talk the bible is so important to our history and culture initially it was the geneva bible that dominated when they came over it tells the modest way of adam and eve that very quickly that King James Bible came to dominate and honestly it resonates throughout our history a great fund of rhetoric down to the centuries you often hear Martin Luther king quote the declaration of independence is our promise every note yet to be cashed he did say that its a very powerful sentiment but his rhetoric and what made it so powerful wasnt Thomas Jefferson it was jeremiah and matthew and from the bible that we get our National Identity that we are the chosen people are lincoln said more appropriately you get the idea that we are living in the Promised Land and you get the idea of a covenant going back to the Old Testament perk of the first covenant in our history the settlers come pretty much every time they found a new town and a church a written document sitting out or the sheer anger of sovereignty that gives us a limited National Government so i will set up in capsule form the conservative agenda based on nationalism which really focuses on our culture to preserve our cultural corporate go it means to defend zealously the english language if theres anything we know about cultural cohesion it is that you get multiple languages even the Vice President of canada was torn apart decades ago that quebec the french speaking province you can see that contention now in spain that is based primarily around the fact that they speak their own language and have their own culture around their Home Language we have to defend our founders and heroes who are under the ongoing assault and in charlottesville with the neonazis there is an old church in alexandria virginia were robert elee and George Washington so they took down the plaque of robert elee. They also took it down of George Washington which is completely insane but that represents the drift of the argument of our founders and National Heroes to defend our rituals and symbols one reason i am so irritated to disrespect because men died for the flag with the history of the war to carry into battle and armed where that comrades took this incredibly seriously multiple men died defending the flag where lincoln gave the gettysburg address the battle of fredericksburg and then handed the flag over to another sergeant who was wounded who took it to another officer so he could wrap it around himself as he died so these go very deep so to be truthful about our history yes we have National Sins but we should not be teaching history of repression and woe but the glorious story of the three People Living in a blessed land. I will leave you with one last quote that captures how deep these cultural attacks are and even if we dont realize it we all feel this of john thorton kirkland that said we have learned to love our country because it is our country to have the opportunity to be useful to it because the sweat of our fathers brow and the dust is in the bosom because of our brothers and sisters because patriotism and the social affection that sacrilege upon his nature. Thank you very much. Thank you very much we appreciate that and this book which steps into one alive controversy trying to organize a little bit to lay out the idea of nationalism and the challenges that it faces. Why do you think nationalism is such a controversial issue now . Why is it so connected to the essence of this political moment why is that risen the way it has why are we talking about nationalism so much quick. Donald trump mainly. The way i think about this i hadnt thought much of the assumption its a dirty word and trumps inaugural address got me thinking about it a little more deeply so democrats gone toward cosmopolitan progressivism and the Republican Party also lost touch with nationalism under the influence with the values and markets and the influence of Business Elite of the late social scientist talked about we had Business Innovation that created National Affiliation over and above those local attachments with the same technological and changes of a transnational attitude. Finally george w. Bush overly idealistic for a policy the party lost touch with nationalism so it was just on the floor and trump picks it up accidentally or impulsively or whatever it is so that accounts for debate. But it goes deeper because of brexit is a major event that happened before the election of donald trump so they think it is the nationstate causing the agony of europe in the 20th century to any oh imperial project. But britain when faced with the question faced with sovereignty should be run out of westminster as a nationalistic answer with a broader phenomenon. If trump drives that debate does that mean this case for nationalism bears the burden you have to answer by what you want to suggest. If you get trump on the teleprompter and you listen to what he said at the un and the warsaw speech think they are deep the true the best speech of his presidency and the idea the worst place that you can buy a foreign occupied army and over the years with the 20th century it has never gone away because the polls are so polish and that is the essence of poland. The one common strain because it so 18th century to be occupied by russia stick to your traditions that they can never absorb you and that is true thats deep and moving truth but once he gets off the teleprompter its nothing like this. Unified potential nationalism its above tribes in race and partisanship so to say he has that potential is an understatement you can come up with many examples to be briefly at war with the city of baltimore he tweeted no human being would want to live there but in the fact that they do and donald trump is the head of the United States of america and to often that does not seem to make any impression on him. But just in political terms of more nationalistic and populist Republican Party that thought through the aspect of a new agenda would have more chance of jumping racial lines in a more stereotypical mitt romney would i think africanamerican and overwhelmingly male latinos workingclass the program and iteration is more appealing but you have to work at it but trump does the opposite. Are these elements incidental is it a coincidence they merge with trump dont they emerge when it is out in the open quick. They are incidental or should be. The issue is they are caught up with populism and with his persona and personality is very different phenomenon but they do tend to be mixed in together because the institutions tend to be so hostile and the Political Parties dont want anything to do with it so that leads to populist outsiders to exploits but that is not inherent to nationalism and Alexander Hamilton was not a populist he was opposed to that they were better at small d Democratic Politics and also anti populist but with trump if you make 19th century analogies he is more in line with andrew jackson. So you say nationalism or National Feeling what kind of thing . Is it a sentiment or an ideolog ideology . To enlist conversations people think patriotism everything is good and nationalism is everything bad to be sent to colon about it the same thing as patriarchy the father nationalism is the idea bound by a common culture and a common history to share govern and distinct territory but the patriotism and nationalism is caught up with one another and they should be interchangeable if you are zealous about your sovereignty and you also have a really strong sense of community with everyone else for the patriotism. That you think it is a feeling . Its not a way of organizing politics . The term has served all these purposes. It has been a concept of Foreign Policy thinking which is largely the role it plays in europe and Domestic Affairs nationalism as opposed to localism and also equated with patriotism. There is the lowest common denominator, nationalism that we put our peoples interest first youre focused on preserving your sovereignty and your interest in Foreign Policy it doesnt give you a policy answer to anything and it is a mistake to say i am a nationalist therefore i oppose the iraq war it doesnt give you an answer on what policy it serves that there are schools of thought and libertarians who think they are small minded or to constricted to say we will be focused over other peoples land sovereignty and interNational Interest. 80 percent of americans should be be in favor of our own interest they say yes but there is that 20 percent has a philosophical commitment that is at odds with nationalism. Bernie sanders is an example in 2016 the editor says sanders you are in favor of helping poor people isnt it true the best people to help people around the world is to let them all come into the United States . That is a truthful proposition no doubt that is better for all the immigrants. He says no. That is a coke brother proposal we cannot do that. So it was beaten out of him with that nationalistic sentiment. But the way you try to root the case of nationalism in the american story in its various phases and one of the most striking claims as american nationalism precedes american independence that we existed before as a nation and its rooted in english nationalism how can it be rooted in another nationalism . What does it say about its character . What i argue in the english civil war going way back whether the english nation had existence over and above outside the monarchy. The steward had a traditional idea that it belonged to them and they said no it belongs to the people they have their own rights and claims you have great contention with the civil war which topples the monarchy briefly and then is a muddy compromise that works but it does limit the power of the crown. What you have to simplify is people who were most vociferously to bring those cultural assumptions and predilections to our shores. And it is the version of english protestantism to give you a version even about enlightenment before anybody read john locke they said no we will govern ourselves. I cannot give you a date but somewhere between the early 17th century and 1776 you do have American Interest that governs itself with its own morays and ways of thinking. And you dont get the revolution at that pace it was about vindicating the rights of that nation. Whitey resist the notion america is an idea and a general sense defined by a way of thinking about itself not a political life more than it is to find by a place or language or ethnicity that hold some nations together . You describe People Unified by certain ways of thinking. Thats a good point and i want to say the ideals are not important but i make the case how you think is caught up in your culture seeded with ideas. What i say in the book if settled by russians and you give them all a copy of the second treaty and demand they read it every single night they still would not even have gotten close to the american founding. Second, the ideals are dependent on the success of this distinct political entity which is the american nation dependent on its power much like my remarks. Then just to fall apart in disgrace and the ideas die with it and we still would not be able to vindicate our ideals in the same way we did in the 20th century if not a continental nation so the way of thinking is important just not the entirety of the story and republicans and conservatives have gone way over to exercising those ideals. Are we encourage or discourage by the subject of your last book in american think lincoln is an idea or is he skeptical of the embodiment of this other way of thinking quick. He was both. I dont think they are contradictory. People have a perception it cannot involve ideals which is completely false all nationalism has some ideal content the french had the most Christian King and after the revolution with these ideals english imagine the world in ancient israel is very complicated again is simplified in my book but the idea they are a light unto the nation and lincoln and did that in a particularly inspired way. But at the end of the day the most Important Mission was saving the nationstate. In part is slavery still existed and was overrun by this logic. Henry clay and as lincoln said buckle up number one because it was free and number two because it was his country. And i mentioned to the statements about america but never once is there any suggestion on the part of lincoln that god would actually at the United States of america. He said clay love the country because was his country but mostly because it was free to think of america mostly because it was free quick. Mostly. That provided the opportunity for people to rise but the freedom wouldnt be defended or preserved if the nationstate was torn apart. So i refer again to the argument that you are connected. And to further the opportunity to be connected to a Political Program with railroads and canals and creating a national market. In 2009 or ten president obama got in a lot of trouble on the right for saying americans are patriots and have patriotism and the greeks have greek patriotism belgians have belgian patriotism and that is great but that was a failure to understand what really mattered in america so i was struck maybe you defend obama than most to say that a nationalist appreciates the nationalism of the other nations the greeks do love their country if i was a greek i would love my country. But it is objectively true we are the best of all nations. That doesnt mean they cant have their patriotism and we should not honor it. We didnt talk much about Foreign Policy but this is a key element of the consensus of american policy in the 20th century with a free and independent and hopefully over time a small d democratic nationstate knock on wood we have had a relative. Of great piece the last 50 years internationally is the success of establishing that norm which has cut against wars of territory and to have a more sacrosanct borders and a greater sense of legitimacy around the nationstate. One last point people think as a nationstate thats where we get militarism from but there is no form of Human Organization its not deeply flawed so you do have tribes they are not peaceful tribal wars are not anything to be taken delightful many times they are extermination if you go higher through the empire, rome only close the gates to the temple to indicate peace for several years and its history the problem with empires is somebody has to rule with a dominant culture or the language and all the other nations so the empire had a pretty good run 600 years without coercive apparatus in the way the nations go their own way its the exact same experience with the soviet empire and the same experience with western colonial empires. People feel connected to one another and people with a common language will want to govern themselves thats a basic natural argument. Where does this thinking the federalism and localism . Nationalism that you described in the book sometimes understood itself not to globalism but localism is that a way to say we have one american way . Know. Teddy roosevelt, the presidency is fine if that phase afterwards the over leaning nationalism and they are waving banners and thats never a good sign but proper nationalism needs to be rooted in the United States constitution which creates a National Government but also a system that allows an enormous amount of leeway for localities and having a distinct local culture is part of the american way i wouldnt want entire region to speak another language that would tear at our cohesion to represent that has to be avoided at all cost. A nation its held together to deal with the darker sides one of the way its controversial now is that it strikes some people as ignoring or overlooking natural sins with that nationalistic expansion or the slavery question which is not just historical questions but contemporary. What does that have to offer us thinking about those challenges quick. A truthful history to acknowledge our sins. That doesnt mean telling lies about ourselves either. And there has been such a greater emphasis on this question there is an element of that i think is profoundly true and moving we describe the author who is a teacher who had a wellmeaning project she wanted to point out on the globe where they were from and because she and her africanamerican friend were so american they had no idea two. So if you take the average africanamerican family aside from families immigrated in the last 20 or 30 years they have a lineage in this country going way back much further than the average europeanamerican. Certainly much further than the neonazi from charlottesville africanamericans are part of the cultural nation from the very beginning and make extremely important contributions to it. Cut and conservatives should be fully cognizant to focus on the way that we have not. But with a sweep of American History the nationalist vindicated the right with that bogus sense of states rights as southern nationalism as a way to continue chattel slavery and the repressive jim crow system in the south. But we should not lie about ourselves and thats the other side of the coin with a project that says the American Revolution is about slavery. It wasnt after 1776 you had a great loosening in the north all of them embracing gradual abolition even in the south and in the 19th century thats another story. But its very unusual to have a people who want to lie about themselves normally lie about the other guy. The french lie about the germans they dont have to tell many lies but its new and unusual to lie about yourself for your own legitimacy and this goes to how cosmopolitan attitudes have seat into the elite in that respect i think the business and psychological changes have created greater trans nationalism cosmopolitan used to be the outsider the agitator diogenes said i am a citizen of the world. And in the athens marketplace to shock and that attitude in the sixties and seventies has seeped into the elites in and to focus on identity politics which underlines subnational loyaltie loyalties. If you put them all together you have our nation and its coherence the way it hasnt been threatened before. Contributing to identity politics is that another way to approach our political right through the lens of identity rather than idea quick. I dont think its identity politics politics i think its the opposite only from the citizen of the world to look at having National Loyalty that is small minded. It is not if you look at places around the world over the last three or four decades its in the middle east and in africa the colonial legacy the artificial borders drawn in the countries it hasnt been unifying or wonderful but its worse you have that mutual sense of obligation and a duty and real tribes that tears people in countries apart and makes it impossible to have a social trust that lubricates democracy and capitalism. We now have questions. I in turn here in dc. My question is do you think it helps their harms people who want to move voluntarily from one place to another . Of it helps them, why . Between different nations according to the 2018 gallup poll 50 Million People want to immigrate but cant. I dont think any country or the actual reality of the world should stop people from emigrating its only totalitarian countries like cuba or north korea that do this. But because nationalism is bound up to have a distinct people immigration policy i think is implicated but again my contention would be immigration policy should be good for the citizens and for people who are already here. That should be the primary concern with a big policy dispute thats true at a higher level than we here are at now or a lower level. With an emphasis on skills. But people cannot stay the same if they are overwhelmed of immigration that is possible to absorb in the traditional nationalistic focus that we see this is to put an emphasis on assimilation and in the early 2h century that was successfully absorbed there was emphasis on assimilation with incredible machinery every elite institution in American Life on board with helping immigrants assimilate and the pressure of two world wars, then pause and immigration beginning in 1924 with a law that was ill intentioned for bad reasons but did create pressure on the ethnic enclaves that have developed on the immigrants to marry outside of their group and ultimately thats what you want for americans to become all mixed up together and have a mutual feeling as one rather than any sort of enclave developing. What does that look like now as a policy to serve the National Interest of those who are here quick. I think to recognize we are in a different place of the early 20th century with the great manufacturing economy you can plug immigrants into by 40 percent we have a different economy now, more based on technology and information and with a bigger emphasis on skills so many people want to come here for very good reasons which gives us the opportunity to be a little bit choosy there is the humanitarian element and a refugee program, obviously some allowances for family reunification but that said there should be much more of an emphasis on skills of people who already speak english not just people coming from australia not that they want to but tens of millions of people who already speak english in places like india and nigeria so lets get immigrants who can exceed in economic terms quickly rather than have three generations later because so many people want to come we can decide to pick and choose and to me that just means common sense but for a lot of people once you even say that now that you have committed some sort of offense and now you are small minded. Obviously the president in his rhetoric has hurt this type of discussion so in that mindset how do you advance this idea of nationalism in an environment where people are offended by that word of what it means to the president quick. Its a very good question. Number one making a case of nationalism is a bigger phenomenon than donald trump it doesnt begin or end with him and i want people to read my book but those who are skeptical are opposed to trump to read the book and hopefully come to the conclusion that this is an important thing and should be integrated into any post trump conservatism or Republican Party that again this does not begin and end with donald trump if i could wave a magic wand theres many things he would not say or do but i am not equipped with such a wand. Thank you for your remarks. My question is do you believe the Us Government when making policy decisions about any other domain should place more value on an American Life than on the life of another country and why or why not quick. Yes i do. This incredibly lazy thinking about trade this arrangement with china is great because 100 million Chinese People are out of poverty which is a benefit that the focus should be here in the United States at the cost of that benefit is 2 million americans dumped into poverty and opioid addiction and selfdestructive behaviors that it changes the equation for me. So the focus should be on her old one our own people not with every humanitarian initiative what president bush did in africa with aids is an example of a worthy humanitarian issue that cost very little. But the focus has to be on the folks here at home. I would like you to save more that i thought i heard you say about southern nationalism is scurrilous that having coming from several generations of southerners i do agree slavery shaped the social political cultural system completely and thats why it became a nationalist culture in its own right we have all of these confederate monuments to that but just save more because i am curious. You heard me correctly. Lincoln is a good on this in the inaugural address there is no National Geographic boundaries a truly separate National Culture there was not a different language or founding in the basis of the southern nationalism was explicitly in defense of a hideous and unjust institution and the fear to be overwhelmed by a growing north with economic power and as it grew stronger would impinge on this institution but it has to be a adjust revolution with a deeply unjust cause. As far as the monuments, i dont think they should be sledgehammer in the middle of the night or spray painted the locality as side but i prefer to see them on a battlefield or in the museum especially those that were erected at a certain point of time to send a message about the appeal and legitimacy. Of the socalled southern nation to send a message to africanamericans. I am not a fan of those monuments. Thank you for talking. George Mason University reading burke it is impossible not to conclude he loves Great Britain and loves being british at the same time supported letting the american colonies go. Do you think his nationalism is more what you are talking about it is not militaristic quick. You are putting me on the spot asking a question on the same stage. [laughter] i know very little about him especially compared to walsh so maybe i will defer. I will just redirect. [laughter] it must be the most stirring defense of nationalism. [laughter] and that suggest a capacity for seeing as part of your own nationalism the appeal of others nationalism and maybe also suggesting the question is getting at a sense that nationalism isnt connected to military or national expansion. Is that fair . Yes. I think it is. Nationalism can easily fade into imperialism but there is a line. Is often fuzzy but i had had inherited from my ancestral reading in National Review the care sympathy for colonialism that was more benign with a tendency but i think it is highly mistaken and farsighted and incorrect posture to be willing to let people go their own way to be selfgoverning fdr and churchill had a big argument about this fdr thought churchill was on the question of colonialism and in my view he is completely right. So you answer no questions why you moderate . [laughter] thank you i am a member of the reagan foundation. There are dangers to both ends nationalism could lead to isolationism that leads to imperialism thats exactly what happened to japan. So my question is what are the differences or how do you distinguish . Im not sure i have a satisfying answer on this. Our Foreign Policy should be National Interest based but that is some say its more than others but i tend to think the International Institutions we have such a big hand in developing the postworld war ii environment proudly serve our National Interest with any reasonable costbenefit analysis is much more of a benefit to the United States than a cost. But again this just gets too proud nationalism in and of itself cannot settle these important policy questions just to say i am a nationalist is not sufficient to tell you what tax rates should be or your attitude toward nato. Ive got nothing for you. [laughter] from the Washington Free beacon so you talked about tribalism and cosmopolitan how both are together in places at the same time like with africa or the middle east and at the same time this corrosive tribalism that even the separatist they want to leave the United Kingdom between the eu. Is there a mutually reinforcing relationship . Is their reason they coexist and thrive together quick. Im not sure i see such a relationship it is a symptom of in those countries but i dont see a relationship between cosmopolitan. You spoke about trade policy preferring American Interest over others so if you accept that as a nationalist trade policy, how do you think of the attention with a traditional conservative sense of humility what is best for the American People in economic terms even if the intent is for the marketbased that maybe we should not plan on that quick. I didnt mean to endorse industrial policy and if i did if i did i was not clear and i regret that. But again this goes to the policy is in the interest of our own workers if you should have the industrial policy are not on that basis i agree where you are coming from i am skeptical about Big Government intervention which is based as you correctly point out a finegrained understanding of what is best for every single industry what should we should be supporting and not supporting in the history of those policies is not happy but looking at the seventies with those initiatives of the history that is generally a failure. Isnt it inherently cosmopolitan is there capitalism in one nation. I think capitalism does depend on rules that are not self generating even not have any rules with china thats not how it works. You have to write it down and i dont thank you get democracy or markets or source social trust without nationalism and a sense of creating the nation states which are the most natural and political entities. Capitalism will tend toward the openness but you need the nation to have the government that will write the rules so there is no such thing as free floating libertarian people out in the ether everybody belongs to something and live somewhere and everyone has to be governed with rules even for the market for trade to work. [laughter] i make no judgment. That is a good place to end thank you rich for the book. [applause] he will be signing books and we will have a little reception for you thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations] i think the criminal Justice System is an improvement when my father and grandfather experienced in this country but its still not perfect. But i would caution against taking these examples to say they are typical or to say the reason so many blacks are involved in the criminal Justice System is because it is racist per se. I dont see a lot of evidence for that and often times we have discussions about the makeup of prisons and jails but we dont talk about the racial makeup of people who perpetrate crime i dont think we can have one discussion and it has been and continues to be there are behavioral differences that lead to some being overrepresented and others to be underrepresented. Its a book that