With a marvelous analysis analysis of conservative nationalism. I want to extend a warm welcome to call it and our distinguished commentators. As you probably know, colin is a professor at George Mason University in a nonresident fellow at aei nextdoor literally at American Enterprise institute. This book is examines the concept of conservative nationalism that has been brought to public attention through the rise of President Trump in terms of both the history of ideas and how they have a manifestation especially medically so it is encompassing and granular and despite the gravity of the subject i can tell you is also a very delightful read. I read the book over the last weekend and i commend it to your attention. So its a pleasure to have you with us. I am also very grateful those that have agreed to join us we cannot ask for better commentators given their intellectual interest in conservativism and to making and implementing Foreign Policy in the United States a long career on capital here capitol hill where she worked at the Senate ForeignRelations Committee also with foreign us policy and appears widely on television and Senior Vice President at aei where she continues to remain a senior fellow in Environmental Defense studies also with a long career in Public Service now ceo the center for new American Securities which i say with some jealousy and is doing incredibly Creative Work on operational issues for National Security. He was senator john mccains Foreign Policy advisor and worked at the state department and National Security council. So a very warm welcome to both of you is wonderful to have you here again. Let me invite call in to present the key teams we will have a brief discussion after an open the conversation to the floor and then i look forward to the interaction. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you very much for this invitation. Just so happens this Panel Includes three people all of whose experience and expertise and views i really respect it is a pleasure to be here. Without danny this book would not have happened and she may regret that but it is true. So im glad to be here. Let me say a few words about the central thesis of the book and what motivated me was the common argument over the last five years the Trump Administration represented something completely unprecedented in American History and that this striking rise of populist nationalism on the right for both sides of the atlantic is a cause for comparisons in the 1930s without those genuine causes for concern, i think it is overstated with american populism in american nationalism and form policy so its not pro or anti trump polemic but it is in context which i think is missing so american nationalism there is a foreignpolicy nationalism going back in the american case there is a civic nationalism that has an american creed with rule of law and limited government and that is within the nationalism so they thought to conserve that and when it comes to foreignpolicy the founders had some key principles that were consistent paradigm for generations the idea that the United States would stand for something and that is a distinctly american hope for us Foreign Policy we dont want to do it by force but as an example and the second element is the idea to maintain a free hand that there is no entangling permanent alliances from the foreignpolicy nationalism from the beginning of they saw the contradiction between those two that is a dominant bipartisan tradition well into the 20th century. So what really shifted was wilsons innovation during world war i he agreed you not only had to tie the new foreignpolicy paradigm that we call globalism to the possibility of domestic progressive reforms including the United States and economically in europe to indicate overseas but also make global binding multilateral commitments worldwide particularly under article ten with the league of nations that is a paradigm shift wilson understood and so did the critics which gave them pause so republicans and conservatives everybody agreed how to tackle or accommodate that tradition those internal divisions and debates i say theres 3 million groups over time conservative internationalists are skeptical when it comes to multilateral commitments to believe that you should have alliances overseas that is the position of Henry Cabot Lodge with the treaty of riverside debate bursae debate. And then to be overly optimistic and unrealistic and then there is a group on the other end of the spectrum with libertarians conservatives that the us really should avoid all together and trade peacefully but they should not have a military role outside of the western hemisphere so that tradition goes back as well a populist that is west from the mississippi and then theres a third string kind of in the middle with a hardline unilateralism without that elite discourse but conservatives over time have had a fairly strong willingness to spend on the military or count encounter concrete adversaries or al qaeda but they are at enthusiastic about those enthusiastic projects if you cannot convince them there is an end of one enemy that requires a response they will shy away. Thats the group over time so what you see is a pivot back and forth between activism and disengagement between the circumstances all factions agree wilson was wrong that they did not agree why but in the twenties and thirties they agreed the us should be detached from military affairs in europe. Pearl harbor led that debate for some time and then led hardline conservatives to support the more worldview overseas the think about senator goldwater he was not enthusiastic at all because conservatives supported this is because they were staunchly anticommunist so as welcome as it was the question was is what now here conservative internationalists george w. Bush settled that debate with the war on terror remorse of the most supported that for most of his administration but during the obama years your back to that. And then they ask what now. The big surprise in my opinion of the republican primary was a candidate could win the republican nomination against that tradition and donald trump led a frontal assault on the conservative nationalist tradition going back decades and he turned things upside down so they were marginalized and those in charge were deeply concerned im not suggesting that we personally read these documents but instinctively it is a nationalist. That draws from older tradition he had a particular nationalism on his own with 30 or 35 years and said over and over again that they were the free riders. Thats not my view. That is his view. He was quite consistent about that and said taking advantage of the United States and aim to somehow and what is a policy alternative as we saw in the primary with the military interventions of iraq and afghanistan frustrations with patterns of globalization and chinas middleclass as opposed to working americans and supranational organizations to have a sense of frustration turning that into a winning platform so the older version of american nationalism that i think we have seen a resurgence and that is part of the historical context. Now once we had the transition unexpectedly to the government because it came as a surprise to a lot of people in the room so what now . Of course there has been uncertainty from the beginning was severe personal challenges. In reality the trump foreignpolicy is more a mixture of nonintervention and actually continuing foreignpolicy activism engagement it is a hybrid partly because of his own adaptations over time. He is flexible to a fault but there does seem to be a pattern how he handles foreignpolicy and thats an argument to make as well so if you will indulge me, he launches Pressure Campaigns against allies and adversaries on Economic Issues again security adversaries north korea the tele band, straightforward but then in a somewhat different way that is part of what youre seeing a maximum Pressure Campaign with iran and north korea for example then you see against us allies to increase defense spending not entirely new but away we have not seen before Pressure Campaigns on the economic front against china as a us competitor. That is a trump innovation. That was not nearly as high of a priority to really push china for prior president s on the commercial side. Finally against us allies on trade is new i dont think any other candidate would have done that pressure south korea japan mexico, eu looking for renegotiated trade agreements. So he goes up and down the ladder of isolation it could be quite sudden and unexpected and then he will lower it he will adjust and then settle or talk to almost anybody that tends to unnerve people and probably some of his own staff but over time if you tend to turn down the volume which is very high come its not an obvious that he knows the endpoint i dont think he knows his own Reservation Point but he keeps his options open that is different from saying with a rules based International Order i doubt you could describe it to you with the assessment with the diplomatic military to reserve the right and even to bolster some more than there were under obama so that cannot be determined a significant amount to even be increased and that seems to be the form policy. I would be happy to talk and discussion but thats what it looks like to me. Just a few final thoughts. I also talk about Public Opinion in the relationship of conservative opinion to the Trump Administration and to my surprise the distribution has not changed that much over the last five or ten years. Even though trump took advantage with one end of the spectrum with more projectionists and managed to turn that politically but the distribution isnt that much the average voter had mixed feelings but there is no less support than 15 years ago. He hasnt really changed voters minds is much as you might think but there is a difference to capture certain segment of opinion. For example most republicans had a negative opinion of putin ten years ago. There was mixed feelings ten years ago and corporations today most republicans supported nato ten years ago most supported today. So if you go down the list that is reality politically but having said that i do think there is a longterm shift the Republican Party has become more populist and culturally conservative white workingclass voters at the base of the party that will have an effect on your foreignpolicy including your trade policy. He is as much of a symptom as a cause he accelerated that so i would not assume that the longterm shifts disappear you cannot assume he is just a oneoff and as soon as he is gone everything will snap back to 2015. Im a little bit skeptical about that. So my conclusion would be that in the future conservative leaders would have the opportunity to make foreignpolicy cases to play a leading role, the public is open to it for the us activist in the world but some of the ships are real so there has to be Coalition Building and you have to figure out how to live within the same party. One way or another american nationalism is here to stay. Thank you. [applause] i did not even need to put on a coat to come from my office and i do appreciate your words of thanks. He very kindly says he would not have done this but i know that he would have because he was the first cohort of which we are really proud. And to the think tank for Health Related issues that we knew they would be productive and that aei is super happy about it with that legislative assistant. So this is a very sober and fine treatment of the questions. And what we like best about it but they with american conservatism. And absent the hysteria that carries pretty much every conversation in washington its good to have serious conversation that doesnt actually reference twitter in any way. I know who you are talking about as you reference in the title and then in the final chapter. And to be hardly optimistic that scoundrels will be honored in fame will vanish. But it is true but the reality is if you set aside what goes on with todays conversation or if the United States will honor article five the reality is a very a version we can debate when there has been an aversion we had a project several years ago in reaction to what we found of libertarian ideas at the forefront of what i would call isolationism dont think of them as a realist but the isolationist and for those that have that viewpoint on the left as well you saw that on display at the debate last night. But one of the things we looked at is American Public interest with engagement you see a very cyclical engagement interest drop. And if you go back to pretty much every the president ial campaign you could even go back to clinton, every single one republican and democrat , has been about turning inwards. In george h should be bush with the goal for that was done. Even barack obama that that was the slogan for the easily could have been donald trump. But in each instance we find they run on the slogans god is terrible america turns inward and then of course we end up entangled in a conflict in the middle east. And donald trump has been a different. No different than that. The other point to make that call and rightly describes his American Public view is consistent the only thing that changes is on particular issues of for example the American People think its not great to be in afghanistan numbers dont support that but during the Obama Administration when obama decided we need to send troops he gave are relatively rare speech talking about the importance and it went right back up again. The American People are willing to be led. They want their leaders to make a persuasive case to them. And when they do whether for an engagement or military commitment or economic commitment or make the case for disengagement to move away or nation building at home or avoiding foreign entanglement entanglements, whatever they chewed they go for that as well. I dont think that is fickle on the public but a general normal lack of interest. I always try to underscore we pay a lot of attention to this. Most people dont. That is just the reality. Thats not a bad thing. Where you really pinpoint something i call it an open question for the future a populist trend. This is really rooted to my mind much more than the tectonic shift within society rather than the sudden appeal of the Donald Trumps of the world. We had Political Parties that have remained static over the years and not the parliamentary system and then to decide now i will create a new political party. You have the relatively static Political Parties to find themselves over the years and then to feel that the party no longer represents their interest. And thats for you see the upstart coming from. Not just in the United States but all over europe, asia and elsewhere. That shouldnt be a surprise. But the underpinnings of that with the philosophies and Political Parties of the establishment more of a National Security phenomenon and i commend to you the work of the aei scholar he wrote a book called coming apart and he details the fact 15 years ago there were enormous cross relationships in the United States that people were not isolated in their bubbles and therefore with innovation the poor could marry the rich educated could marry the non educated now we have become much more fragmented with this populist phenomenon particularly with one group of people that are donald trump constituents. White collar less educated men that if you like society has left the behind. What they think is hugely important and could be a transformative driver. Could be. That might not be but this is something for all of us to think about. But all of these come together and raise questions that just are not about article five. They are not about the commitment of the moment or poland pays 2 percent are great one greece pays 2 percent it is a broader idea that is flexible the shifts over time and may in the long term have an impact for those who care about this or not vigilant. So with that i will turn things over to richard. Thank you for bringing this together. I thought i would give the few thoughts on the book and then a few areas of conclusions that first with a have laid out are absolutely right of the cyclical nature with the entrenchment as we get into the korean war and eisenhower retrench is and lbj and then ford pulls back so we can see that waxing and waning that maximal american exertion around the world but the biggest driver of this is they suddenly become the aficionados to get through another window that people say we have to constrain the definition of National Interest and then it starts to expand again. But the Trump Administration is only a partially a piece of that. colon framed the intellectual reaction of Foreign Policy. I thank you could make an argument with the assumption of