Poor people who can afford a brownstone that cause one or 2 million they cant afford a condominium that cost 800,000. I think gentrification has real impact. Urban america is being revitalized at the same time. In the 60s we called the removal. Host the first book that Peniel Joseph road came out in 2006 waiting til the midnight hour, dark days, bright nights came out in 2014 and stokely and life brandnew hot off the presses and it is booktvs Book Club Selection for the month of march 2014. Booktv. Org up there at the top. Theres a tab that says bookclub. Click on the enemy can participate in our discussion throughout the month. Peniel joseph thanks for being on booktv. Guest thank you for having me. Booktv continues with Angelo Codevilla who says u. S. Leaders have about the Founding Fathers place pursuit of peace is the highest object of american statecraft and the school was lost during the 20th century must be regained for the left to thrive in the future. This is about an hour. [applause] thank you john and welcome to the heritage foundation. Peace has ever been mankinds desire and yet throughout history war has been his coming practice. Well consider the major conflicts of the 20th century in which america is about world war i, world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war and the iraqi war one and two, the afghan war and of course the cold war. In the wake of each working the question how can we make them and more importantly how can we keep peace with other nations . Or are we doomed as in George Orwells apocalyptic novel 1984 to a state of perpetual war . When we is through strength, a basic principle of the Reagan Administration and the principle reason why the cold war ended at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. Another path to peace is to rely on statecraft grounded in the principles of liberty and equality articulated in the declaration of independence. Now sometimes the americans early statesmen approved limited military intervention overseas. They took their lead from the roman adage if you want peace prepare for war. But how far have we strayed from these principles . Have we become the policeman of the world and are laudable desire to extend freedom that we adopted a policy of nationbuilding regardless of the wishes of the nation we seek to rebuild. In his newest book, to make and keep these Angelo Codevilla says are 20th century and 21st century leaders have confused the send war as well as americas interest and the worlds wishes. They have forgotten it ever knew the lessons of the past and affected the wisdom of the founders. Doctors codevilla offers no easy answers insisting that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the mayor occasions of war abroad. Our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many dimensions of peace. Professor emeritus of International Relations at boston university, former Research Fellow at the hoover institution, a senior staff member of the u. S. Senate select committee on intelligence, exforeign Service Officer in naval officer. The author of 14 books and numerous articles in leading publications here and abroad, possessor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. Ladies and gentlemen please join me in giving a warm heritage welcome to the author of to make and keep peace, dr. Angelo codevilla. [applause] thank you lee. I hope i can keep you awake in the next few extra minutes. I would move to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the Wounded Warrior project, a very worthy cause. The commercial for the station was accompanied by a song that asked us to say a prayer for peace. That got me a bit angry, quite a little bit angry. Suppose i said to myself if you had been paying plumbers to fix your houses pipes. The pipes still leaked and someone said to you say a prayer for your pipes. He would say god has nothing to do with my pipes. I didnt hire god to fix my pipes. I hired those plumbers in the pipes are still leaking. They didnt do the job. Theres something wrong with the plumbers. Whats wrong with the plumbers . We hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and war for the purpose of providing us with peace and instead they have given us for without and. A war in which they have no intention of ending. For which they seem happy enough to continue superintending. Why . Whats wrong with that . Why dont we have peace . That of course is the reason that they do not have the intention of creating peace. Why dont they . Well, because if you go to any of the u. S. Government academic venues you see that they have preached what one might call the cliff notes version of clausewitz mainly that according to them that war and peace are not distinguishable and International Affairs is a seamless continuum. Ordinary business and mutual destruction. That of course is not what the dictionary say. The dictionaries are quite clear about what war is and what peace is. Not so the u. S. Government and not so the statesmen, not so in fact much of the academic literature today. Hence, it is not surprising that our National Discourse on the subject of war and peace is a sterile confrontation between neoconservatives who see as president george bush articulated in his 2052nd inaugural, is a process by which we try to secure the worlds freedom, but leaving that we will not enjoy freedom ourselves meaning of course we will never be free. And a libertarian evolution that we can somehow avoid the rest of the world. The common sense is quite against that. Most recently a wall street journal New York Times poll showed that a Strong Majority of the American People believe that the u. S. Government should be less active in the world but at the same time same poll showed that a majority of the American People wanted the u. S. Government to be much more assertive against americas enemies in the world. The Mainstream Media of red that is the kind of contradiction in the american mind. Of course they did no such thing. In fact the opinions of the American People reflect the wisdom of the ages namely that one ought to seek peace, seek to stay out of trouble but that one ought to earn that peace by being terribly so against our enemies we have failed to do that and my book is an attempt to rekindle tension to the basic fact that the basic objective, the natural objective of statecraft is the provision of peace. We do not give statesmen, not to be dealing with foreign nations in order to deal with foreign nations. International relations is not an end in itself just as plowing fields is not an end in itself but rather an end to the crops that one wishes to produce. The purpose of International Relations is it that so we may lead here at home the life that we wish to lead. The purpose of securing peace abroad is to secure peace among ourselves at home and it just so happens that failure to secure peace, to earn peace among foreign nations really does tend to bring about the loss of peace of ourselves. One of historys more poignant teachings from the Peloponnesian War is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight one another with the purpose of somehow bring in that fight to an end. Nature tells us that the purpose is to come to some sort of rest. The National Purpose of inactivity is a product of that inactivity so the natural purpose of International Affairs and indeed of the most active part of International Affairs which of course is war is securing rest and peace. Now, my book begins with a clarification about the nature of peace and that there is no such thing as peace but simply there are only such such instances of peace from time to time as any nation is capable of earning for itself. All instances of peace are somebodys peace against somebody elses version of peace and they are maintained only insofar as those who established it are willing to maintain it. Again there is nothing permanent about peace just as there is naturally nothing permanent about any war. Now, the understanding that peace is a natural priority is not natural to mankind. Mankind is really no stranger to the animal kingdoms tendency to regard other members of that species as trouble or natural prey. Only a few civilizations have understood that only one civilization, the christians are laysha nation civilization, has understood that peace is preferable and the rest is preferable to constant movement. And that understanding comes from an understanding that mankind is one, that the differences between peoples is considerably smaller than the difference between any human being and any member of any other species. That understanding as both christian and classical greek intellectual roots. Embodying that understanding of statecraft of course was and continues to be a struggle both intellectual and moral. The clearest elaboration of the proposition that the natural end of statecraft is peace and of course most clearly in jesus reply to pilot about his kingdom. Jesus gods kingdom is not of this world. Saint augustine elaborated that christians he said should be indifferent to the things of the roman empire because individual souls are far more important than what happens to people. Hence the privacy in christian thought of peace which is the tradition most conducive. Mainly the contemplation of service. In the same way he thought to follow and understand mans naturally highest purpose mainly intellectual. That is also to be pursued most easily and most conveniently and most actually in a state of peace. Now that embodying that insight into practice, structures of practice of statecraft as they say has been the work of ages. There has always been a contrary tendency even within our own civilization beginning in the 15th century. The rise of europes kingdoms tended to equate goodness with the success of monarchs, monarchs who placed their own primacy ahead of peace. Hence, monarchs conceived of themselves as in a natural state of war against one another. Modern political thought beginning with machiavelli and hobbes imagines nothing but a natural state of conflict and did not see any goodness in the pursuit of anything other than primacy or as of course the objective, the natural objective of statecraft are to be the pursuit of peace. Why . Because again peace is what allows human beings to concentrate on that which makes us most peculiarly human. Now, this does not mean that the laws of nature and natures god prohibit selfdefense because of course the laws of nature and natures god certainly include the fact of human freedom and human freedom of course implies the fact that some humans will be rapacious toward others and of course makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. But what it does do is again to highlight what christian thought does and what classical thought does, to focus on the natural purpose of statecraft. The American Revolution was in fact a revolution against both the absolute power of governments and against the violent priorities of most governments. This really must be very clearly understood, that the American Revolutions intention of establishing limited government went handinhand with the American Revolutionaries prima primacy, the primacy of peace and the American Revolutionaries thought. Some arguments have been made by some neoconservatives that american statesman, the american system of the founding air a were concerned with peace because they were not Strong Enough to prevail in a war and had they stronger they would have in fact use that strength to force their understanding of the right way to live upon other nations. There is precisely zero evidence for that in the thought of early americans. The declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was to secure poor americans rights which are common to all men in all places including the right to selfgovernment, regardless of the nature of that government. The americas were also clear that they would have considered themselves, especially this is clear with john adams, they considered themselves peculiarly blessed in having that kind of moral habits which made possible that way of life. They did not expect that those habits which spread quickly if at all. In fact they noticed that even indigenous efforts to spread that american form of government floundered on the fact that the rest of the world was really not attuned to the kinds of moral habits that the American People had enjoyed and that these moral habits existed precariously among americans. The american focus on peace went along with a thoroughly conventional and let us a proper understanding that statecraft requires like Everything Else in life requires a clear and jealous concatenation of and send means, that one must make sure that one has the means to secure whatever claims one makes an one ought to make no claims other than the claims that one is able to support. This of course is no different from the notion that one ought to have at hand the money necessary to pay for purchases and to pursue him to have certain goods without the ability to pay for them is at the least quixotic. So both of these insights, then necessary concatenation and the priority of peace really were behind the paradigm of International Relations of the founding generation most clearly by John Quincy Adams in the Monroe Doctrine and the explanation therefore. The Monroe Doctrine contrary to contemporary misunderstandings thereof had nothing to do with asserting any kind of over the americans but rather it was a statement of priorities on the part of the americans. The statement of priorities that came not from John Quincy Adams but John Quincy Adams summed up on behalf of the founding generation of which he was the last member. That consisted of the realization that what happened on the other side of the oceans would concern the United States relatively little insofar as it concerns what simply concerned them. Of course, John Quincy Adams was perfectly aware of the argument made at the time that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only over europe but over england as well and have been able to dominate the oceans as well as the european continent that would impose a tremendous danger to america and had europe as a whole been able to control all of latin america, that would impose a tremendous danger to deny states that he believed that there was no danger of that happening. And in fact the Monroe Doctrine was premised on his competence that this could not happen and there were enough contending interests within europe to keep that from happening. Had it been otherwise the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine would have been different but it was not. Was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and therefore and in the americas and therefore threaten the United States. Abraham lincoln, who was, who i followed who had been a follower of John Quincy Adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and to secretary of state William Seward literally worshiped John Quincy Adams knew in his bones that as he stated in 1838 all of the powers of europe disposing of the worlds treasures our own accepted could not by force make 8track in the trial of a thousand years. The problem as lincoln sought it, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations but rather are growing enmity, the animus he that was growing among americas, the tendency of americans to regard each other as enemies. The issue of slavery of course being the greatest of the causes of the pretexts for that but realizing that as head George Washington, that there are many many causes or occasions for strife among our own people. Of course George Washington had pointed out, yet experienced that americans divisions over Foreign Affairs were a mage or cause of this loss, always potentially fatal loss of friendship among the American People. And so Abraham Lincolns policy, domestic and foreign, policy regarding peace and war always was aimed primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this friendship among the American People. Of course he faced that problem in the worst circumstances when in fact doing so required defeating the one part of the american polity which had taken arms against the other and yet, and yet we see from especially from his second inaugural that Abraham Lincoln aimed above all at the unity of the country as restoring that function. Unfortunately for america, the people who governed america after lincolns death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as americas First Venture in nationbuilding, theyre remaking of the defeated south, first of all considering the defeated south as a defeated nation which lincoln was absolutely loath to do. And then reshaping it according to some thought some ideal or at least better way of life. That of course turned into an occasion for continuing islands and continuing the ill feeling which lasted 100 years and put some in our time are attempting to revive for this very same reason, why the radical republicans of the 1860s and 70s indulged before their own political advantage and for their own nevertheless the priority of domestic peace return to america albeit slowly until it was put in jeopardy in our own century. In the 20th century by Woodrow Wilsons adoption of the notion that really as he said in his address of february 2, 1917, that the American Republic existed for no other purpose. It had no other reason than to somehow improve the rest of mankind not only to improve americans, lesser americans but improve the rest of mankind. This of course violated, this notion violated a whole bunch of principles. First of all the principle that there must be a correspondence between ends and means. What possible means could affect the improvement of mankind . How in heavens name, by what power on earth can anyone improve mankind . Is it indeed possible to change human nature . Is it indeed possible to change anyones culture of ones own are much less anyone elses forcibly . Common sense says no to americas statecraft in the 20th century says yes. We can and we must end if we are not we are not an exceptional nation. One might add we are not an exceptionally stupid nation but in fact so much of american statecraft in the 20th century was premised on that. Examples of the opposite of Theodore Roosevelt common sense maxim mainly speak softly and carry a big stick are all too common in the 20th century. In fact they are very much the story of the 20th century. Perhaps among many examples my book explains what the secretary of state Charles Evans hughes did in 1921, the famous washington treaties of 1921. The famous nine power treaty reaffirmed and got soros a National Agreement on the perennial american ejected of guaranteeing chinas independence and territorial integrity. At the same time however the Washington Naval treaty committed the United States not only to solely reducing its naval power as to give japan a clear superiority in the western pacific but above all it committed the United States to refraining from fortifying guam and the philippines. This of course guarantee that japan would not only have more ships in the area but that those ships could take out american bases very easily. What do you think japan did . Do you think that japan refrained from any attack on the independence and territorial integrity of china . What did the United States do when japan in fact attacked china . Well, nothing. Rather, actually something far worse. Franklin roosevelt secretary of state for 10 years, for 10 years in salted japan for what it did to china but refrained from building up the u. S. Fleet or from fortifying manila and guam. And so as lincoln would put it the war came. We have learned very little from that in our time. In fact what we have been doing since in fact even during much of the cold war with the exception of the time of Ronald Reagan has been to redouble our commitments while reducing our forces. You may have noticed that there is some trouble in ukraine tod today. Well, that follows from the fact that ukraine is disarmed. Why is ukraine disarmed . Because United States government under both democratic and republican administrations prevailed upon ukraine to give up the worlds thirdlargest stock of Nuclear Weapons. How . Was ukraine revealed upon to do that . By a guarantee from the United States. United states. Well it wasnt exactly firmly worded but determined by everyone as a guarantee of ukraines independence and territorial integrity by the United States of america. Now of course the United States of america watches as ukraine is being gently torn apart by Vladimir Putin and i emphasize gently because Vladimir Putin has not actually invaded it openly but parts of it but rather is grabbing enough power within it to manipulate the rest into takeover all of ukraine. What is the United States doing . Is confirming the worlds evergrowing opinion of it as foolish, weak, toothless and able to be taken. What are we doing with regard to the fact that china is increasingly extending its power over the western pacific . Well, we are sending a few troops to the philippines, not nearly enough to protect it of course, not nearly enough to protect anything while may came loud noises about renewing our commitment to our allies in the area. Precisely the same mistakes as in 1921 and which mistakes can be expected to have the same results. Starting in the 1980s and in the 1990s the United States has been suffering attacks from various terrorists. The u. S. Government has several times and by george w. Bush after 9 11 declared some kind of war against these terrorists, but the u. S. Government has failed to identify who is causing that war, preferring to portend that this war is being waged by a few rogues whose identity except for these fellows like bin laden are the 200 or so people who were with them in this thing called al qaeda most of whom by the way are now quite dead, and neglecting, preferring not to understand that a whole civilization is being marshaled against us. By whom . Well, that does not require intelligence with a capital i. It does require intelligence with a lowercase i in the sense of america. And who might that be . Well, we know that the Palestinian Authority schoolbooks indicts the United States and of course the actually for all sorts of terrible things which any good muslim but to protest violently. We know that the wahhabi sect of islam does the same thing and does so with the money of saudi arabia, the qataris etc. The money and the support of the leading personages of these places. Common sense might suggest that these authorities which rule with an iron hand in fact have some say about the activities these activities and common sense might suggest that where these activities to be curtailed we would stand a far better chance and curtailing those activities might be more worthwhile than shooting individual trigger pullers and bomb setters. But note the u. S. Government prefers to portend thats a matter of a few rogues and so the war has continued. Year after year and now we are in the second decade of that war. That of course has brought the u. S. Government to ill dispute around the world but its done something worse, far worse. It has brought upon this country the Homeland Security department and the militarization of police in america. This behemoth lives by the proposition that it is impossible to know who the enemy is and therefore it could be anyone. You or i must be sifted until someone decides, we dont know who, that you and i perhaps are not. Now we know that human beings tend to focus their energies upon the people they liked the least. We know that the u. S. Government like any set of human beings has in fact already taken measures against and treated terrorists treated as terrorists or threaten to take people as terrorists people who they dislike politically, socially. We know that these are difficult for human beings to resist and we know that as the governments power to enforce its dictate grows those temptations are going to be ever more difficult to resist. And so we conclude by realizing that the failure to earn peace with foreign nations has in fact brought war home amongst ourselves and we ask ourselves, how can we stop this . Well we can stop this by realizing what we have been doing and by returning to common sense. I wrote this book so that the people could trace our civilizations primacy on peace, how our government was set up and in fact on the basis of pursuit of that primacy, how focuses about primacy was lost and how it may be regained and i commend you for your attention. Thank you. [applause]. S if youll please identify yourself and direct a question at our speaker. Yes, i am duncan clark. I want to ask you since you piece the theme of your book, many people believe that peace should be pursued through a project called Global Governance and through the creation of supernatural institution in which nations would surrender their sovereignty to the larger, though often unaccountable wod yo cent onre caion you simply enlarge the jurisdiction and then the quarrels within the jurisdiction are no longer called international wars, theyre called civil wars. Thats that does not affect reality. It simply changes the name of what is happening. Unless, of course, one establishes a really power, supernatural excuse me Super National authority, in which case you call that police actions. Again, you call things by different names, and in the latter case, the violence would simply be worse. Andrew. Could you Say Something about the nature and substance of education in the United States has, say, enabled this change of mindset that led to the Current Situation . Excellent question. My previous book, the title of which was advice to all president s, has an opening chapter entitled use the dictionary. The problem with American Education is that it teaches people that it is not necessary to use the dictionary, to use words in their proper meaning. Dictionaries teach you that words should reflect arrest. American education reflect reality. American education has disabled generations now from contact from understanding language in a way that allows them to contact reality and has disabled them from reasoning. The dumbing down of American Education makes all sorts of good things impossible, or at least very difficult. I doubt i dont know how many people could have followed the argument i just made. Why . Because that takes an Attention Span longer than a few minutes or a few seconds. The American Educational system destroys Attention Spans, among other thingsas well as historical knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. My name is mary. Im an independent observer researcher. And talking about peace, im getting the impression that youre actually promoting or justifying war. And i think you have youre making an error in making the assumption that the natural state of a species is to stay in the natural state of conflict, perpetual conflict. As a matter of fact there are studies i dont remember the name of the psychologist and study but it was presented to president lincoln. It was like i said i dont remember the name but it did state specifically that the natural state in a rational society, especially an educated society like america, and we are at a higher state of education around the world now, that the natural state of the species is actually to protect, to love your offspring and protect it. I guess maybe thats an impulse that is more common to women, and that the natural state of war that you are, i guess, promoting or justifying, is based in the fact that there just havent been enough women in positions of power, specifically because they were very ignorant. They were raising their children. They were poor. They were under the control of men. Would you have a more natural propensity, one might say, to fight and to control, indulge in their pleasures. My take on why were still in this horrible state, all over the world, and you have brought up ukraine, by the way, where i lived, and donetsk. Almost uncanny this should all come up. The reason why theres so much conflict right now in ukraine is probably linked to quebec and canadian currency introduction. I think Monetary Policy is one of the biggest issues that nobody talks about. And of course, this linguistics debate with russia and ukraine, its the same, language, the same people whats your question . Well, im not making a question. Im making a comment. That i dont agree with the premise the justification of war. May i reply . Yes. You no, no, i dont think you heard me correctly. I did not i did not say that hobbs and machiavelli were correct. I simply stated that is one of the premises of modern thought. And that the american founders disagreed with that, disagreed with the notion that mankind is naturally at war. The point is that mankind is neither at war nor at peace inherently, and that such peace as exists and such wars as exist are the products of specific decisions, and those specific orientations. It true that some kind of governments tend to be more warlike than others. And that is not necessarily that doesnt necessarily mean that the dictatorships are inherently more violent than democracy. That simply is not true. Hat never has never been true. As far as women are concerned, the theres a reason why the greek made the furies female rather than male. As far as ukraine is concerned, the reasons for the enmitt between russians and ukrainians have something to do with the fact that the russians killed ukrainians by the tens of millions, and that there isnt a house hold in ukraine that does not have memories of recent memories of the russians. In the back. Thank you, sir, for another sue Ndamukong Suh black block yates the first day on the john of the new president and you were there to advise the next president as to how to deal with the rise of an antiamerican, nonnormative, ill liberal bloc of super powers. Your counsel . Speak softly and carry a big stick. I wanted to just ask you, angelo, given the really awful situation that we have in dealing with very murky sort of war against terrorists all over the place, addressing your what seemed to be your tough criticisms of Homeland Security and those operations, and obvious enough there are domestic threats, very serious ask they need to be dealt with. What does make sense for you and. Profiling. Profiling. Thats how the israelis do it, and it my suggestion would the only variation i might suggest on the israeli approach is to be perfectly explicit on what the profiles are, and how they are to be pursued. Explicit profiling is subject, as it should be, to democratic debate about what the threats are and how theyre to be dealt with. What we have now is it is so necessarily is a kind of, let us say, hidden arbitrary profiling, and you, because of your social political standing, are as likely to be on the wrong end of the profiling as anyone else. The profiling simply depends on the appetites of those in power at any one time. It ought to be profiling really is another way of declaring war, declaring who the enemies are. Declaring who the enemies are and how they ought to be dealt with is the same thing as declaring war. The founders placed that function clearly in the hands of congress, simply because they knew that war and peace are the business of the people. Not of some set of leaders who are not subject to the regular checks by the people and that it requires deliberation, public deliberation, and votes. My name is sir, you have made some very interesting points during your presentation, some of them i agrees some of them not so. Thats always possible. But your fundamental principle is that statescraft should be to bring peace, and you said speak softly and carry a big stick. Now, let me ask you, whenever United States negotiates or the president of the United States negotiates with another country, where theres a very turbulent issue for example, lets take iran and it says the military option is on the table. Now, within the country, if i were negotiating a tough situation, i say, heres my position, and youd better take a position compatible with mine, otherwise im going to kill you. Almost is that what part of that [inaudible] well, it depends what it is youre negotiating about, and if you are negotiating about something which involves a threat to your life, seems to me you do this or perhaps i will kill you, makes a great deal of sense. Now, it does not make sense if you say such things and you dont mean them. That makes no sense at all. As regard i suppose youre also referring to the threats to bomb the Nuclear Weapons in facilities in iran. That to me, makes no sense at all, because that is not war. That is simply a discrete act of violence. War is a set of acts reasonably aimed to bring about piece merely bombing Irans Nuclear site would do no such thing and no one has ever suggested it would. Theres an argument to be made for war with iran. That argument involves doing whatever it takes to get rid of the current regime and bring about a one that is friendlier. Theres an argument to be made for such war. Theres also an argument to be made for saying, okay, iran, what is it that you really want from us, and what are you willing to give in return . Theres an argument for that. Were doing neither of these things. It may be possible to resolve whatever differences we have with iran on the basis of, course number two, that has not