He is a vietnam veteran and a life long aficionado of books, maps, chicago sports, and music. This afternoon, he will be speaking on his latest book, the tragedy of u. S. Foreignpolicy, how americas civil religion betrayed the national interest. [applause] thank you very much. It was a wonderfully brief introduction, except you left out my doctoral dissertation. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall i thank you all. The turnout is fantastic. I will try not to let you down. , this is a homecoming, or would be, if the Woodrow Wilson center had not changed so dramatically over the years. I was a wilson fellow in the early 1980s and rose most of my pulitzer prizewinning at the wilson center. Was in those days, it the Smithsonian Castle building, presided over by jim billington, his assistant, and sam wells. Is sam wells still affiliated . Yes, he is. Mr. Mcdougall god bless him. Back in those days in the Smithsonian Castle, there was virtually no security in the building. Those were the days, right . Today andhat readers certainly in the future will assume that the author of this book intended it to be a swansong, the somber reflection of an aging historian about his nations ascent to great power and glory only to see that sacrificed through hubris and nemesis. Nothing could be further from the truth. I never intended to write this book at all. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall following publication in 2004 and 2007 of two lengthy narratives on the american founding, then the civil war era, i expected to complete a trilogy with a volume on the progressive era that would. The United States through its maturation as a world power carry the United States through its maturation as a world power. Instead, harpercollins discontinued the project on the grounds that my books were critical success. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall i acquiesce, mes had those two to warned me out, so i decided to lie fallow for a few years and then write a revised edition of a previous work. Not that it needed correction. On the contrary, that book had proved prophetic, even mark by cassandras curse, for in it i urged americans to return to the foreignpolicy principles of our less isest republic, halfcentury of emergency mobilization as a crusade to state destroyed forever its original identity as a Promised Land. Instance, i wrote, this is in 1997, everyone agrees that bad forhussein is or can we presume to chinese to tell how to be better chinese. If we try we can only be poor americans. No wonder i felt to revisit the themes following the terrorist attacks on 9 11 and the hyperbolic u. S. Response to them. The publishers of that via also showed no interest in a book that had not been a bestseller to start with. ,hat left me in a quandary because i had already arranged for sabbatical in 2012 and got in and outside grant to help fund it. I had to write something, but what . That year i spent catching up on 15 years of new scholarship on the history of u. S. Foreign relations, i was clueless about where the research might lead, if anywhere. Mentor,h, a friend and i call him my personal owl of minerva, came to my rescue. I had gotten into the pleasant profitable habit of lunching once or twice a month with james kirk, a professor of Political Science emeritus. He also happens to be a shrewd psychologist. He listened to me agonize for months about my dilemma before choosing the right moment to make a suggestion. About, rightu know what truly expresses walter mcdougall, he said. Answered,i haltingly american civil religion . Exactly, he said in his indomitable way. He had heard me speculate vers about may be reinterpreting u. S. Foreignpolicy through the lens of civil religion. Toike to call it american medic history in the metaphysical mode. He knew i would be offering a seminar entitled in search of the american civil religion. Is timing was perfect yes, i said, such a book would not only be important and timely, but also, i foolishly thought, fun and easy to write. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall moreover, the topic would give me a chance to settle some scores. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall by rebutting a writer whose book, dangerous nation, was to say the least rather tendentious. Indeed, it seemed to me an extreme example of the fallacy known as per lapses, essentially reading history backwards, because kagan claimed that u. S. Foreignpolicy had always pointed to a messy calling to redeem the whole world, therefore the bush doctrine and freedom agenda in the middle east was as american as apple pie. Kagan even had the temerity to publish an article declaring George Washington was a neocon. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall the purpose was from all to purge Foreign Policy discourse the socalled conservatism of realist like George Kennan and implicitly the author of Promised Land, crusader state. So it was for reasons of professionalism, personal that i setnd peak out to deconstruct our evolving civil religion and trace its influence on foreignpolicy. As weeksscovered turned to two months turned two years was, this is a really difficult book to get right, which is why it took five anxious years. But, here at last is the result. My original, i thought edgy,itle was american heresies civil religion and foreign but thein 1776, aleketing mavens at y rejected the word heresies and even balk at the phrase civil religion. They said we dont even know what those words mean. Well, a war of ittrition and soon and settled for the title, the aagedy of u. S. Diplomacy and subtitle, how american civil religion betrayed the national interest. Which i understand is a glaring ,xample of the pathetic fallacy and down in animate objects or inanimate concepts with human qualities. The american civil religion did not betray the national interest, the purveyors of various forms of civil religion national interest, but that got lost in translation as well. What is civil religion . Jeanjacques rousseau introduced the concept in the social contract. Fateant to describe that that combined citizens together in a republic, citizens who have thrown off the altar, but reality, thrown an altar are two sides of the same coin because every regime has claim some sort of spiritual legitimacy as well as secular authority. Think about the godkings of antiquity, the mandate of heaven of east asian dynasties, the sultans of islam, the patron saints of renaissance city states, the divine right of kings and early modern europe, and indeed the statecontrolled protestant churches of early modern europe. The most obvious example was postreformation england, indeed the religion of which american civil religion is a republican variant. Here is a neutral definition that i brought from sociologists ellis west, a civil religion is a set of beliefs and attitudes that explained the meaning and purpose of any given Political Society in terms of its relationship to a transcendent spiritual reality. Are held by the people generally and are expressed in public rituals, myth, and symbols. That transcendent spiritual reality is what distinguishes civil religion from idolatrous ideologies, such as fasteners fascism or communism. They recognize that if men were angels, no government would be necessary, but since it was axiomatic that human beings are flawed, the framers of the constitution carefully checked and balanced the powers of government. No, americans do not worship the government. They worship the deity whose theology was a rich amalgam of ism andants i enlightenment realism, a new order for the ages, and who bless their undertakings to quote the let and phrases inscribed on the great seal of the United States. Over 200 years, americans to call that for granted, so much so that even as they practiced a divine right republicanism as i like to call it, they never acknowledged that civil faith 1967, which incidentally we are now celebrating the 50th anniversary of the article by robert bella, whose essay called american civil religion revealed this truth to the American People. Decades, theof article inspired a rash of books and articles that unearth the rhetoric and impact of civil religion over time. I missed out on that. When i was young student, a graduate student, i was studying european history for one thing. My own consciousness of an american civil religion didnt emerge until i was researching, Promised Land crusader state, especially my 2000 four book, freedom just around the corner. It was then i came to see the war of independence really was a because the colonial patriots risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the believe a were actors in a play scripted by the author of history. Who was that author . Churched americans assume the god watching out for the country was the same when they worship on sunday, but the american god had no name or 100 baker unitarian names, from washington to andrew jackson, the president s referred to him as the father of lights, supreme architect, almighty being, invisible hand, patron of order, falcon of justice, infinite power, or just providence. And for a surprising percentage of the founders, he was also the freemasons god whose name is geometry whose watchful eye oversees the unfinished pyramid that appears in the great seal and the reverse of our one dollar bills even today. Had ever formed the identity of their national god, the union might not have survived, so the constitution was silent about religion, not because the revolution was secular him up but because it was civil religious, so the no establishment clause of the First Amendment in fact did establish what i call the classical american civil religion, whose gospels include the declaration of independence, constitution, and washingtons farewell address, and whose thetolic epistles included president ial inaugural addresses and other prominent speeches. Origins of this . We baby boomers were taught by perry miller and a host of textbooks that John Winthrop keynote was the 1637 with the keynote address of American Political Culture that laid out the unique notions of american exceptionalism and heavenly mission, and that of course was conventional wisdom during the cold war when americans needed to be persuaded by their elites to make global commitments. Today, we know better, or some of us do. Thanks to the rhetorical archaeology of historian richard gamble who sadly obscure book in search of the city on a hill, the making and unmaking of an american myth has proven the civil religious trope derived from winthrops sermon was in fact a 20 century invention, an artifact of america the crusader state. It was not an archetype of america the Promised Land. If you are curious about that, you can asked me during the q a, but meanwhile, i had begun to trace the acr to its real source, which not surprisingly was british civil religion, painfully crafted over 175 years of tudor stuart history. First thing that came to their church by placing the monarch at its head, then they tamed the monarch in the glorious establishing 1688, parliamentary supremacy, then they embarq on their stunning career of imperial expansion in butte with four spirits imbued with four spirits, commercial capitalism, rabbit anticatholicism, and aggressive imperial expansion, and a right of Eminent Domain over lands occupied by indigent people like the irish or north american indians. No one imbibed those four spirits more deeply than the settlers of the 13 american colonies. But following britains conquest in france, quebec, crown and parliament adjusted it to their new imperial responsibilities by enacting new taxes, new restrictions that appeared to the colonists to violate all four of their imperial spirits. The british were choking their own offspring and their growth in the new world. The british had become heretics in their own church. So hotheaded patriots come and not just the new england puritans, but quakers in the delaware valley, planters of the chesapeake, and scots irish boardman on the frontier, they all rebelled, or enough of them rebelled, and those cradle cultures so lovingly examined expressed various definitions of liberty, but also patriots had cause to resist british war ofty, and after the independence, all four cultures collaborated on a constitution that accommodated in remarkable fashion the puritan notion of ordered liberty under law, the quakers live and let live freedom of conscience, the cavaliers aristocratic notion of hierarchical liberty, and the wild libertarianism of the scots irish. However, thelicy first and greatest high priest of the classical acr was George Washington. It is sobering to revisit the precepts of his farewell address and recall that americans once upon a time held them sacred. ,ashingtons model was moses whose farewell address in deuteronomy promised the israelites they would thrive and their land of milk and honey if they obeyed the lords commandments, but they would be cast out and become at by word that they worshiped other gods, likewise washington gave his people commandments. Jealously to preserve individual liberty and national unity, two, cultivate religion and morale of the, three,. Herish the public credit we have forgotten that one, big time. Four, observe good faith, piece, and harmony with all nations. Five, avoid in federate antipathies or attachments to foreign countries, and six, shun political alliances abroad except in times of emergency. So long asprophesied americans he did those precepts, their nation would grow and prosper beyond measure, but you know what robert kagan claimed about that . He claimed washington didnt really mean it. He claimed that washington really meant those rules might be followed for maybe just one generation of americans, by which time the u. S. Would be so mighty as to dictate terms to the outside world. And that laid the basis for kagans further claim to the effect that John Quincy Adams to not mean it when he told abroads america goes not in search of monsters to destroy. The proof text he employed to buttress that edo syncretic inument is in 1817 letter which adams writes, the universal feeling of europe in the gigantic growth of our population and power is that we shall if united become a very dangerous member of the society of nations. Well, i researched, parsed the context, studied the timing of that letter from every angle, decided it meant the opposite of what kagan claimed. If americans remained true to washingtons precepts, they would soon provide so great an example of liberty and prosperity that europeans themselves would come to question the legitimacy of their harical institutions. If they allowed sectionalism to tear their nation asunder, they would become dangerous to themselves. Strifese sectional continued to build, not least because of that explicitly civil religious movement dubbed by the jacksonian editor john osullivan, manifest destiny. He identified the United States as that church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. He identified the United States as the bearer of a heavenly destiny. Well, and reality, of course, the u. S. Manifested its destiny through hardball war and diplomacy, while the mexican cession of 1848 revived the prospect that slavery might the expanded westward, and that in arn provoked or exacerbated sectional conflict that escalated into secession, civil war, and a schism in the acr just 12 years later. Coursecisive outcome of ratify the institutions come at coming and eschatology of the republican party, which amounted to the revised orthodoxy, which i term neoclassical acr. Neo, but still classical, because u. S. Foreignpolicy did not change, not for another generation, despite massive itself,n the society urbanization, immigration, rapid industrialization. Numerous historians have anfidently claimed, again in prophetic way, that lincolns rhetoric and war mobilization prepare the United States for its later career as the worlds liberator. It just isnt so. Reassertdid congress its authority over the executive branch vigorously during the gilded age, not only did congress cut budgets to the bone during the gilded age, and veto or reject foreign initiatives by the executive branch, but the voluminous works of Abraham Lincoln themselves contain nothing at all about foreignpolicy. In fact, his ominous warning, he shall nobly save for meanly lose the best less hope on earth , expressed lincolns real concern, which was not extension of liberty everywhere, but the survival of liberty anywhere, and in his final words in the second inaugural parade that americans will do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace among ourselves and all nations. Words. Ere washingtonian they hardly suggest that lincoln was a crusader searching for monsters to destroy. Was it however that u. S. Foreignpolicy displayed such remarkable continuity from the 1890s . O the because i think it was self contained by four prudential checks. First was the doctrine associated with the james monroe, but drafted by John Quincy Adams, and indeed implicit in the writings of almost all the founders, which declared the new and old worlds to be worlds apart, separate spheres, and to keep european powers from mucking around in their neighborhood, americans had to refrain from mucking around in their neighborhood. Was one. Nroe doctrine containment was westward expansion, precisely because no american, no sane american, wanted to risk the nations manifest destiny by picking fights with overseas powers. Third, with the Lessons Learned from the collapse of republics both ancient and modern. , at leastry americans the elites, new their classics, new them very well, and they caesarn fear of a julius or a cromwell or robespierre in their midst, and so they fiercely guarded their constitutional checks and balances. And forth was the classical acr itself, which was based ultimately on a kind of residual christian anthropology that reminded americans their human nature was imperfect and in cordial. 1897, president wim mckinley restated William Mckinley restated creede, our faith teaches us that there is no safer reliance than upon the god of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American People in every national trial, and who will not forsake us along as we obey his commandments and walk humbly in his footsteps. Since then the policy foundation of government to cultivate relations of peace and amity with all nations of the world, and this accords with my conception of our duty now. We want no wars of conquest. We must avoid the 10 tatian for territorial aggression 10 ytemptation for territorial aggression what happened to change mckinleys heart, indeed his mind, his soul . Just a year later, what happened was an accident in the form of the cuban insurrection against in retrospect,ut it was an accident waiting to happen because of the rise of a war party and the spread of a heresy. The war party advocated a modern navy, overseas bases to promote u. S. Trade and spheres of influence. Its leaders including henry cabot lodge, theodore roosevelt, these men were prudent nationalists and the policies they were advocating made a lot of sense in an era of worldwide imperialism and they listen. And navalism. Twoleaders by contrast t included progressive elites were progressive crusaders. My colleague defined the movement, we should associate progressivism most with the rise of a more relaxed protestantism in Higher Education after the civil war. Between secular elites and government come academics, business, military, and the broad American Public was precisely the more relaxed protestantism known as the social gospel. During the late 19th century, universities and the new landgrant colleges transformed american Higher Education by demoting theology and classics in favor of secular Scientific Research on the german model. The new knowledge generated in science, engineering, modern languages, sociology, Political Science, economics persuaded progressives that the keys to the kingdom had passed from the clergy to credentialed experts who could help them manage gods universe for the benefit of mankind. After all, powerful forces were at work. Industrialization, urbanization, mass immigration, corporatism, labor unrest, all manner of social pathologies, especially in the cities. Progressives therefore wanted to modernize government, to address the challenges of modern society , and they believed they had the expertise to do so. Reform,ate wholesale all they needed was power. Decadeshose same liberal clergy surrendered to modern science as well. They abandon biblical history, biblical miracles. They reimagine their churches as agents of social uplift. To build gods kingdom right here on earth according to the scientific laws which they believed must govern the spiritual world as well as the physical. Celebrity pastor Washington Gladden called that applied christianity. Stressedty theologian collective run than personal salvation, and he welcomed governments help in promoting welfare at home and throughout the world. Registers theor fact that for the first time in history the spirit of christianity has a chance to form a working partnership with real social and psychological science. Reverendurse the emerged the social gospel with social darwinism, the altruistic , white mans burden variety. The two movements joined forces. In 1898, when the war party realized the way to get americans to support foreign adventures was to sell them as humanitarian interventions. Cuba,h in the case of meant slaying the spanish catholic dragon and saving the cuban damsel in distress. When the spanishamerican war broke out, the pastor exalted two historians 100 years hence, this year will be one of the Great Mountain ranges in the geography of times, a great watershed from which the rivers begin to flow towards a new and distant oceans, the pillar of fire has lifted and moved. We must break camp and follow. Likening theis United States, the American People, to the israelites in sinai. In some progressive clergy turned the dow shall not of the classical acr into that thou must of a newly progressive acr. They claim now that god has not raised america to great power and wealth just to be an example to the world. That now seemed an amount to like hiding one slammed under a bushel. Indeed most progressives were even eager to annex colonies so long as americans civilize their benighted populations. Mckinley converted so thoroughly to progressive acr that even as the u. S. Army waged a bloody war against a filipino independence movement, he declared in his second inaugural, the American People entrenched in freedom at home take their love for it wherever they go, and they reject as mistaken and unworthy the doctrine that we lose our liberties by securing the foundations of liberty for others. Ditch. Titutions will not by extension, and our sense of justice will not abate under tropics suns in distant seas. I am not a theologian, but i believe that is how heresy works. Heretics jettison the whole counsel of god in favor of one or two principles, out of which they concoct a whole new theology, and then concoct a whole new history to justify it, all the while calling the faith by the same name. Later, gkyears chesterton, who famously called america and nation with the soul of a church, he observed that in modern heresies not only is biased let loose from the virtues are let loose also, and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. , im going to commit a heresy of my own here. I am delivering a lecture at the Woodrow Wilson center and i now have to [laughter] mr. Mcdougall i have to state my opinion that no american statements incarnated those dangers virtues knows those dangerous virtues more than Woodrow Wilson i have a few disciples anyway. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall who carried the progressive acr to its logical conclusion. Consider that in 1911, wilson support of the spanish civil war, loved what Teddy Roosevelt doing because he was building up the presidency and steamrolling the congress and creating a truly progressive federal timenment, and at the same , wilson embraced the social gospel. In 1911, he and toned there are times in the history of nations when they must take up the crude instruments of bloodshed in order to vindicate the spiritual conceptions. Is a spiritual conception, and when men take up arms to set other men free, there is something sacred and holy in the warfare. Asill not cry peace so long there is sin and wrong in the world. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall sound familiar, huh . Before the outbreak of the First World War, wilson was making the United States a truly dangerous nation. During that war, wilson preached a pious neutrality while in fact pursuing policies that amounted to giving britain all age short 25 years before fdr coined that phrase. By 1917, however, the british sent secret word to washington they were exhausted and broke. The treasury was bare and the food was running out because of german submarine warfare. Wilson was stuck. I think he was extremely surprised and disappointed by this result. Andof americas economic diplomatic support, onesided neutrality had not prevailed. The british and the french still cannot beat the germans, and so ad to persuade congress and the American People to violate the spirit and what letter of washingtons farewell wilson did what came naturally, he summoned his eloquence and preached a host cell reformation of acr that made the wholesale reformation of acr that stirred up a frenzy and which told whom wilsons Propaganda Agency called persians crusaders they were fighting to realize the kingdom of heaven on earth. As you know, wilsons crusade miscarried so badly thanks in part to his own colossal misjudgments that Senate Debate over the treaty of versailles did play out like a heresy trial. Disillusioned americans recoiled from Wilsons League of nations, which now seemed a wholesale the trail of the national interest. So in the end, progressive acr failed to become the new the tormentsen as of wars and revolutions and globalized economics rendered impossible to return to the neoclassical acr. Years 19201947 a usptus, a kind of long c during which americans reach no consensus at all, were very confused about what mission god intended their holy nation to perform in the 20th century. Wait a minute . Did i just say 1947 . Didnt fdr leave the country into world war ii under a will sonian banner, a war between god fearing nations and totalitarian pagans . He certainly did. Whats more, fdr shrewdly foresaw that this time the United States would emerge from the war with such military and economic hegemony that he, unlike wilson god bless you, sir [laughter] mr. Mcdougall that he, roosevelt, unlike wilson, might control all other nations to submit to an american new world order. Failed as high priest of civil religion. He failed. He couldnt establish the progressive acr as the new consensus in the United States any more than wilson could. Why . First, because the American People didnt enter world war ii voluntarily. They did not march off on a crusade like wilson had preached. No, the American People went into world war ii bitter, their mood vengeful, impatient, get it over with. Nor did the American People have any love for their presumptive allies, the british empire, the soviet union. Finally, Joseph Stalin made it very clear by wars end that fdrs blueprint for a u. S. Led new world order was stillborn. No, what finally inspired consensus around what i call the neoprogressive acr was precisely the cold war. Because fear of communist subversion, fear of coming is to aggression, and a now Nuclear World created such a permanent president s and congresses were willing to overturn not only their own creed, but theyre very constitutional checks and balances. Henceforth, president s, not congress, initiated military interventions, which incidentally they ceased to call wars. Henceforth, the nations manpower and economy remained on a permanent war footing. Henceforth, the executive branch funneled money and guns to all ,anner of foreign governments entangling alliances all over eurasia, engaged in covert activities including assassinations, and henceforth, president s increasingly made executive agreements rather than subject tohich were senate ratification. Americans acquiesced in those de the foreigns of all and defense policy clauses of their constitution, americans acquiesced in all of this because they were now persuaded god was calling their nation to in anhe free world existential struggle against totalitarian atheism. Those were the years when president s assured americans in so many words that they now possess to, they the American People, now possess the technology, the power, the wealth, the expertise to into poverty, conquer disease, liberate nations, establish , after all ite was axiomatic that almighty god does not give missions to phets or whole nations without the powers to fulfill them. Read to trumans inaugural address. Read kennedys inaugural address. Amazing rhetoric, over the top. Well, what about the churches . Mainstream churches fretted for a few years over all of this, particularly over the atomic on, but they soon bomb, but they soon came around to bless the turns, containment, limited war. Truman and eisenhower, kennedy, were there for able to evoke a judeochristian tradition which amounted in practice to what sociologists call a materialist church, the american way of life. Those were the years when in god we trust became the national motto. Those were the years when under god was added to the pledge of allegiance. Those were the years when american exceptionalism got coined and popularized. The years when eisenhower said, our government has no sense unless it is grounded on religious faith, and i dont care what it is. [laughter] mr. Mcdougall those were the years when kennedy, the first catholic president , turned out to be the most zealous exponent of neoprogressive acr. Cold war president s assured the National Congregations that america was on the side of the angels, that america was destined to prevail in what kennedy called the long twilight president snd promised that when that glorious americans would that americans would be the whole world to a virtual heaven on earth, to global peace, freedom, and prosperity, and the implication was in that great acr, al don a millennial third century you might say, a third American Century defined no longer by the cold war, but by the millennial acr which would double as the worlds first global civil religion. You think that is hyperbolic . Vision of precisely that utopia of that small world after all basking in peace through understanding in which the peace, freedom, and prosperity of the whole human race would be achieved through scientific and Technological Progress . That vision was already on display, and suitably hyped by madison avenue in the pavilions and rhetoric of the 1964 new yorks world fair. Onove my passage in the book the seattles world fair and the new yorks worlds fair, and the 1939 york worlds fair also factors in. Rebellion, this is a surprise to me, of the turbulent 1960s i was of that generation, turns out in part at least they were a distinction without a difference. Even the youth rebellions come in his book tale tale hearts, Adam Garfinkel has argued the counterculture and protest movements amounted themselves to a sort of religious revival. I think he was right, except they were civil religious movements through which young people protested the militant cold war acr in the name of that millennial acr which their president s claimed to pursue. The kids asked if this is what we stand for, why then did poverty, militarism, and racism still exists in the United States itself . And when the grownups had no answer, the kids through a tantrum. Decade bothere a technocratic and highly romantic , think james bond novels, the apollo moon program, the plaintiff folksongs, the eschatological expectations of both left and right, so it is no wonder in retrospect that was the decade when robert bella noticed and named the phenomenon american civil religion, but knows in her did his article appear in 1967 than race riots, giant protests, assassinations, the vietnam war, and soon watergate and the opec embargo and stagflation it goes on and on made it seem as if the acr was in headlong retreat. Well, the u. S. Managed to 1970s the crisis of the , but only through three painful percolations Richard Nixon person nation of its 1960s romanticism through domestic policies that combined a tough law and order stance with a very liberal social agenda, which are dwarfed in fact Lyndon Johnsons great society. Plus, nixons foreign policies of retrenchment in pursuit of realand reality politics. Second, the establishment of alarmed by nixons reelection landslide and by indications that he meant to pull off a president ial coup of some sort, they purged Richard Nixon through the convenient watergate scandal. Third, jimmy carters administration purged americans of their cynicism by remoralizing u. S. Foreignpolicy and reviving the cold war. We can see and retrospect those ations clearedrg the stage for the advent of Ronald Reagan. Americas greatest high priest of the cold war. One might say he was the greatest high priest of the whole progressive era from the 1890s all the way on down to the 1980s. Was the truly, truly successful high priest, because he was a true believer. His rhetoric sparkled and his economic and foreign policies were stunningly successful. I think reagan deserves much of the credit for bringing the cold war to a peaceful conclusion. Problem,only one reagan was in a conservative. Conservativeally a precisely because he was the living embodiment, the incarnation of neoprogressive acr. Reagan revered tom paine and the future, not edmund burke and the inherited past. Called america a shining city on a hill, which all nations were destined to emulate. Reagan failed to trim government. He failed to balance the budget. He failed to promote traditional values. He failed to discourage americas flight into consumerism. In fact, reagan presided over the me decade. Reagans mystical creed transcending monday and politics altogether in a mix of optimism, common sense, and nostalgia raised to the level of civil theology. Reagan, he was a magnificent person. ,e was so upbeat and optimistic mourning in america sunshine. He beamed. Reagan just beamed to come , theme, but he beamed a gospel of a peaceful, prosperous americanized world and contrary to everyones expectations but his own, it descended to earth right on cue. [laughter] or so it seemed at the time. It seemed the collapse of the justt union ushered in what cold war acr president s had promised, a millennial era during which the acr would andle as the first gcr nations sooner or later must embrace American Values and institutions. Michael mandel baume called democracy, peace, and Free Enterprise the ideas the conquer the world. , friedman said the world is flat. Liberal internationalist hailed the clinton administrations washington consensus. Imaginedconservatives an american benevolent hegemony that would export democracy and capitalism everywhere. Well, that was the 1990s. That was the last century. That was a long time ago. 20 years down the road and now 16 and 9 11, it years since is clear that the millennial acr has proven to be as ephemeral. Acr. Riginal sony because like postcold war america got tempted to play god. At enormous cost in the lives and treasure, at home and especially abroad. 15, 16 yearsre later, lost we americans and another long cost. Utterly confused in the last election cycle tells us all we need to know about confusion. Utterly confused about what god intends for the United States to play in the world in the 21st century. Thank you very much. [applause] and now we turn to the question and answer and discussion period. Please wait to be called on. Wait for the microphone to reach you. Please use the microphone bid and identify yourself before you ask your question. Somebody will start us off, perhaps. We have a hand in the back. Professor, im daniel graybeard i have known you graybeard i have known you awhile. You talked about the importance of when Wilkins Wilson took office. Ive been doing a lot of reading, the memoirs of hughes. Wilson really had a bunch of second and third great rate people in his cabinet. The congressional leaders with a new democratic majority, like clark from bowling green, missouri, you had clogged kitchen, a small minded congressman. These guys were legislators legislator leaders and all the talent work on the republican side lines. You just had so many people who are first rate on the republican side and when wilson needed a secretary of war, what did he do . He named the pacifist mayor of cleveland, baker, as the secretary of war to get ready to ramp up for a world conflict against military powers, to replace the nonentity of garrison. Hughes, if he had won the election of 1916, do you think with his skill as a great, many think he was a great secretary atte and he has that the naval conference, do you think he wouldve been able to broker a peace by threatening the central powers, who as watson showed, where really hurting themselves financially. D think he could have muscled a settlement by saying we have the most powerful industrial capacity in the world, if we jump in on this you are going to lose, can we work something out . Obviously i cannot answer that. Nobody knows. But i am also a great of meyer of Charles Evans admirer Charles Evans hughes. Most of the heavyweights in foreign and Defense Affairs were on the republican side during that decade. And i suppose that the one name you did not mention, which i think you are not you are right not to come a was theodore roosevelt. But his hughes, i always posed to my students, first of all when im lecturing on the United States during the great work war, i tell the story of the 1916 in election and how it came down to the wire, and how easily local splits in the progressive Republican Movement in california swung that state to wilson, so that Something Like 8000 votes kept Charles Evans hughes out of the white house. One can only speculate on how either the war might have been different or prevented, the american involvement in the war, for a given the fact that they did go into the First World War anyway, how the paris peace conference would have played out differently. If Charles Evans hughes, this very judicious new York Statesman had, a future Supreme Court justice, had, or future secretary of state, had been president. He would not have gone to paris to negotiate on his own. That is not for the president to do. And all of wilsons own advisors, even his second graders raters, his own cabinet urged him, do not negotiate yourself. You have great prestige and you will squander if you try to negotiate and engage in dirty dealing and compromises and all the rest. But that was just one of many occasions in which wilsons pride got the better of him. He thought he a loan could alone could bring about this great revolution in world affairs. He was almost a profit, rather than a diplomat. And it was a disaster. Bow to your, i will simply agree with your the wilsonation on cabinet on domestic policy. Principalk that the principle fact to carry away about his domestic policy is he was a know it all. He was a know it all. When he was president of princeton he tried to change everything overnight. Absolutely every policy overnight. We are going to abolish the dining clubs, we will reform the faculty, and all that. Everybody from the trustees and alumni to the faculty and students were all outraged over his policies, but wilson did not hear opposition and he was the same way in politics. Newe is a new book now, a buyer copy of edward a new biography of edward house. Which i have not read. Ive been busy with my own book. But it strikes me as very timely. We are going through the century, the centennial of all these events, the First World War and american entry into the First World War and the Wilson Administration and so it is timely that this new biography of house has come out. He had written a novel called administrator. It is an amazing book. It is not very good, but it is very telling. House, who was this democrat from texas who helped engineer behindthescenes the nomination of wilson at the democratic convention, house believed oferly in progressive kinds dictatorship. He had nothing but contempt for congress. Weve with certainly not a good reason. Hero,imagined this, this philip who comes out of nowhere to sort of become a kind of convio, who puts down a rebellion against the United States and establishes a kind of executive government. Is an administrator. The good administrator is the ideal for house and i believe that was also the ideal for Woodrow Wilson. Acr suited him perfectly. He was, here he was at princeton, his own father and grandfather had been presbyterian pastors in the south and i am not sure exactly what theological positions wilson had on social gospel, but being president at princeton he would have been in the midst of one of the most conservative presbyterian faculties, i guess you would say, or influences in the country. The holdouts against the social gospel were very often led by those theologians at princeton. But regardless of his embraced these, he social gospel mentality because it suited his political bill perfectly. But, heaven on earth. Think it would be of great interest to everyone on the point of wilson, if you could say some words on selfdetermination, whether he had any idea about the worldwide consequences. Walter i have never come across any evidence that he understood the consequent is of selfdetermination. [laughter] walter let me start by quoting the progressive republican senator from wisconsin, who was a fierce opponent of american belligerence in 1917. And he wept before the senate, as it debated whether or not to give wilson the declaration of war that he wanted. Lletteollett lafo worked himself into tears pleading before the senate and among the questions he asked iif mr. Wilson wants to fight a war to make the world safer for democracy, why dont the british grant democracy to the irish . For the indians, or the egyptians . If mr. Wilson is making war, not only on the german people per on their militaristic government, how come far more germans support the kaiser than americans voted for wilson last year . But wilson again was obviously an abstract figure, he was a damn it. R, he was a professor. I do not trust professors anywhere near the holds of power. Nothing is more dangerous. [laughter] and so, what do professors do . They have abstract theories and they are liable to try to put them into practice in ways that are utterly real unrealistic. Robert lansing, the secretary of state, told wilson that national selfdetermination is the most dangerous idea ive ever heard. [laughter] wilson did not pay any attention to him. Course the plane playing out the narrative in the context of my own course i am offering this semester on 20thcentury european history, the immediate, the immediate, not the immediate but the mr. Matta consequence of wilsons selfdetermination would come 20 years later in central and eastern europe, when heather was able to exploit when hitler was able to exploit the grievances of minorities who are stuck inside some elses country, in wilsons crazy redrawing of the map of europe. And hitler of course, what did he invoke when he reoccupied the austria, whent to he then demanded the polish corridor what did he invoke . Nazi ideology . No. He invoked national determination. But the longrange, maybe this is where rogers heart is, the longrange consequences of national selfdetermination were in the colonial world and the process of decolonization and all of those terrible problems that had arisen in some parts of the world as a consequence. Chairsl take a prerogative and going to a question. You answer the first thing on my mind in your introductory remarks about the subtitle, in which the weight is on American Religion betraying the national interest, but people using ideas betrayed. So you have checked that box for me. Eric it got me thinking about the ways in which civil religion is invoked and how effective it is in a couple chain accomplishing the ends of them. When you talk about the great war and world war ii, president acr, but innts of the end they do not stick. There is no indurain legacy there enduring legacy there on the ground until you get to the cold war and the neoprogressive acr. But even there, i wonder, the idea civil religion can be invoked and justified, but the extent to which it is absorbed or believed over a long time seems less clear. The korean war, that cannot sell very well for long. The anon, vietnam, rather messy. Until reagan and his relentless banging of the drum against the soviet union, you know, there was certainly an embrace of but at the same time it did nothing to carry the kind of necessary mobilizing weight. Even into the 21st century. I wonder if this is more useful for selling imperial or foreign interventions in the short run, but the various contradictions and problems that american foreignpolicy runs into immediately thereafter makes its shelf life or futility rather limited. Walter that is a very good question. Fundamental, methodological issue, maybe even philosophical issue, that robert could not resolve and after about 20 years he finally said, i do not use the term civil religion anymore. He did not reject it, he just said its usefulness had come to an end. All i can do with that term, i will not use it anymore. And if that is, and i understand that and i grab your point. Civil religion, the civil religions that the United States has sort of phases that it has passed through, have been, have had varying degrees of you never andi universality, believe from the elites and people. Some heirs of civil religion were very strong and there was pretty much a consensus. On what god or however you do god, tens how our nation behaves in a given area of history. Andy civil religion always and a civil religion always can be a positive force. Especially in a great big diverse democracy such as the United States, we have all kinds of people from different backgrounds and different sectarian face faiths. Having a civil faith that binds us all together is called americanism, if you want to, but given the fact that we invoke this deity i am willing to go along with the term american civil religion, it can be buried very powerful. Especially binding the nation together in times of sacrifice, hardship, war, depression, and whatnot. Toxic when itcome and the jack abu country tries to export it all over the world. And you say, but how much have american leaders really believed in this civil religion or have they exploited this kind of religious rhetoric sibley to win support from the American People . Simply to win support from the American People . Maybe for partisan reasons, appealing to a voter block, or maybe for national reasons, trying to preserve or pull everybody together. T is the appeal to class catholics as well as protestants, during and after world war ii. And during the judeochristian background, sort of creating a kind of holistic judeochristian, which has been applied with a biblical basis for the civil religion. And now in recent years since w. Bush was the first one to welcome muslims into the civil church, in his inaugural address, of course he was very concerned that the war on terror not look like a religious war, so he welcomes muslims into the markets of church. , andbama welcomes hindus , into thei believe american church. It is interesting. But, it is very easy to be cynical about this president ial rhetoric. All this god talk, it is a bunch of cant. Theres t belters, maybe they believe in this stuff but the elites are above it all. I think that is often true, but i cannot tell because it is not given to us to look into the hearts of other people. So i will not render judgment. Was the stake of Ronald Reagan state of Ronald Reagans soul . I dont know. But i can tell you this, i cannot tell you, i cant adjust suggest to can you this, president s and other elite figures often come to believe their own advertising. And they come to believe in their own rhetoric. And president s especially. But i think this is true of all kinds of elites in journalism, education, business, you know mrs. Nt to believe, this is part and parcel of the acr, americans want to feel good about doing well. Well, but weo do want to feel good about doing well, we do not want to feel guilty about doing well. If so we kind of and so we kind of gravitate toward ideas principles that allow us to feel good about doing well. And so if you are, if you are a big businessman you can be a wild liberal from Silicon Valley who promotes globalization and very progressive values and be on the left and because you are on the left you field feel good about doing well, especially if you create a foundation. If you are the brothers, you also want to feel good about doing well. You promote ideas, which you gradually come to truly, firmly believe in. That i am, i am really doing sort of gods will by promoting the things i promote. I think that harry of,an, who was a good kind he was not a real good southern baptist, he liked his bourbon and his poker and cursing a little bit too much to be a good southern baptist, but i believe he was ernest earnest, and i believe when his speechwriters gave him these words to speak to the nation, with all of the invocation of god and of the American Mission and all of these promises of america having the power to really save the world, i think he probably came to believe it. Kennedy, i dont know. Im not so sure about kennedy. But i think i avoid making those judgments in the book. The acr speaks for itself. Ands used by president s maybe it is even believed by president s. It continues to be a genuine phenomenon. Quickly, running out of time. If you want to take the last question . One second. Microphone is coming. Such a pleasure to listen to you and i cannot wait to read your book. And i am sure it is impeccable history, but you are scaring me. You are scaring me quite a bit. [laughter] because i have been most of my life a journalist covering Foreign Policy and then it was a federal official until recently and i guess my life has been shaped around the thought that the most dangerous ism is american issa nationalism isolationism. That it was something to fight. And with somebody with roots in europe as well as here, europe gets in trouble when the United States has isolationism tendencies, such as we have now. Can you comment on that . You have pushed a button. Ok. Walter isolationism is a mess a myth. A flat out myth. The United States has never been isolationist with the possible exception of 193337. Herbert hoover was no isolationist, he was very much of an internationalist. Obviously he had worked as an engineer around the world, hydraulic engineer, he made fortunes in globalization aided tried to promote International Cooperation to pull the nations out of the great depression. Roosevelt was much more isolationist, but only again for about six years, then he gradually recognized the fascist threat and he led the United States gradually out of isolationism. Except for that sixyear window, america has never been isolationist. I would urge you to read and other of my books, even shorter than this one, the promised where i make, the case that this country has always been deeply engaged, americans have always been deeply engaged in the atlantic and the pacific world since the very beginning. Merchants were 1790s, shipse into the pacific, the whaling fleet as well. Trade with europe was always vigorous, washington said, extend commercial relations with all countries, everywhere. Just be careful about political alliances. Whatn the 19th century, isolationist country would have andlized half of its navy sent it halfway around the world to open japan . Throughlmore did Commodore Perry and the opening of japan. This is not an isolationist nation. Now, i understand what you mean by it. Isolationism gosh, was invented around the time the spanishamerican war as a dirty word. Said, i am in an imperialist simple because im not an isolationist. Now, is donald trump and isolationist an isolationist in the political sense, pulling out of nato for instance . I do not know what trump is. I have written to blogs which i combined it put on the Foreign Policy Research Institute website commenting first of all on trumps apparent civil religious, what we think we know about his civil religion, which i wrote just after the election. Then another blog after the inauguration. Gotten atave sort of least that far in my sort of trying to discern where he is coming from. On acr. Youhis foreignpolicy, know, i have absolutely no clue. The how far, will american entrenchment go if the United States becomes more inward . It will depend an awful lot on our own allies. In other words, if europe continues to kind of crack up of we have more indications the upcoming french elections and german elections, the dutch are going to have an election. If there are more brexits and everything, and you know, it is going to be much harder to persuade the mac and people the American People, particularly somebody like trump to reach out and exercise leadership over a dissolving alliance. So it is a twoway street i think. There has always been pushed and pulled in terms of the u. S. And european relations, where the europeans pull us in and we push them toward defense solidarity and all the rest, always kind of a pushpull. N american executive branch, american president i will say, i do not know about the exec of branch, but with an american president who seems disinclined to extend certainly, if not maintain american commitments overseas, then that creates the danger that if the overseas alliances begin to disassemble so that the pull factor is also going to be weak at the same time, then you have potential for danger. So i hate the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.