little did we realize that our panelists would be addressing president-elect trump. we are fortunate that we have five historians that who have a sense of public purpose. they would like to reflect on some of the public policy imperatives and context that the new administration that will be faced with. as laid out in the program, we are going to follow the order -- alphabetical order. first up is nathan citino. of rice university. a scholar of the middle east. saudi written about u.s. and u.s. arab relations. khalil gibran muhammad, of harvard university's kennedy school whose work explores the , intersection between race, ethnicity, and public policy will be next. his research polices criminality in the united states. our third speaker is my colleague margaret o'mara. i always want to say like maureen o'hara, and she corrects me. she is currently focusing on the relationship between high-tech and american politics. she has recently published a book on pivotal tuesdays, four elections that shaped the 20th century. ken pomeranz, from the university of chicago. a former aha president and author of the much acclaimed book entitled "the great divergence -- china, europe, the making of the modern world economy," will be next. last but not least is sean wilentz. he has written extensively about american history. and a number of other topics, including in the popular media. i think if you are a bob dylan fan, you know he authored one of those texts. each of them will be speaking for about 10 to 12 minutes. at the end of that we will have , a q&a session. if you can come up to the mic, we are not going to be passing the mics around. nathan? professor citino: thank you. thank you to the program committee for inviting me to take part in this plenary. i feel especially honored to be in such distinguished company tonight. thank you all for coming out to a warm room on a cold night. in trying to anticipate the trump administration foreign-policy, it makes sense to compare 2017 to 1953 and 1981. both of those years saw the advent of republican administrations that promised tougher and more confrontational foreign policies against american enemies than the democratic administrations they replaced. during the campaign, trump compared himself to dwight eisenhower and ronald reagan. in the case of ike, in the face -- on the basis of his commitment to deporting undocumented immigrants. in thinking about the middle east, i would like to propose another year. 1973, it may help us to understand what lies ahead. that year marked a richard nixon's second term. it was dominated early on by the watergate scandal. watergate constrained nixon's participation in foreign policymaking in the middle east and elsewhere. watergate contributed to and helped to shape the consequences to the arab-israeli war. with the nixon sidelined, his secretary of state and national security advisor henry kissinger offered a peace process that for the for the foreseeable future. , all the clothes off the possibility for a comprehensive peace. in the case of president trump, his first 100 days will be in dominated by his relationship with vladimir putin. and the role of russian computer hacking and influencing the outcome of the 2016 election. this controversy is already playing out before investigative johnngs, promoted by mccain and lindsey graham, and it has also come up in confirmation hearings for trump's cabinet nominees in , particular, the secretary of state designation for rex tillerson. no one can predict where the russian affair will lead, though it will probably not rise to the level of the watergate. consequence,nate u.s. country region to solving international crises that require cooperation with russia, such as the syrian civil war, will likely be held hostage in the first 100 days to the domestic policies and the russian hacking scandal. democrats, smarting over hillary clinton's lost, divided and in the minority of both houses of congress will tried it for -- prudencertray trump as -- putin's client. they will try to associate him with foreign subversion by the kremlin. this political strategy is a mistake. it ignores the american genealogy of trump's foreign policy. and the reason behind its appeal now. in thinking about trump's foreign policy genealogy, for instance, in a democrat from 1934, texas, the state where i live, says we must ignore the tears of solving sentimentalist and internationalists, and we must permanently close, lock the gates of our country to new immigration waves and throw the keys away. this was in the context of a new -- and earlier refugee crisis. the debate over whether or not to admit jews fleeing nazi germany. taft,1, senator robert republican from my home state of ohio, wrote u.s. contributions to the nato, or nato. taft wrote i am quite willing to support arms aged great britain and france to the extent that they are not able to arm them else, although -- arm themselves, though the providing of their arms should be in their own budget and arms should not be provided to prevent a reduction in their civilian standard of living. i see no reason why the other nations should not be prepared to make the same sacrifice. populist nativism and strategic unilateralism both have long -- unilateralism both have long pedigrees in the u.s. as trump's america first campaign slogan reminds us. neither is the exclusive property of democrats or republicans. it is impossible to say how the challenges of the legitimacy of trump's election will constrain his foreign policy in the middle east. his most controversial proposal is to move the u.s. embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem. trump already designated as his ambassador to israel, a supporter of the settlement enterprise who strongly endorsed moving the embassy and annexing the west bank to israel. trump condemned the obama administration for not vetoing councilhe u.n. security -- as well as secretary kerry's speech defending the u.s. abstention. trump has raised expectations. of moving the embassy soon after taking office. if he does, there will be a range of immediate or short-term consequences. he would further isolate the u.s. international in ways that would undermine the stated goal. such as fighting the islamic state and opposing new sanctions -- imposing new sanctions on iran. moving the embassy would precipitate a crisis and alienate muslim majority countries already offended by his vow to bar muslim immigrants. and by his appointment of certain advisor such as michael flynn and frank gassman. the palestinian authority said it would rescind its recognition of israel and the authorities' already compromised legitimacy would be further degraded at a time when demonstration of violence seem possible. the politics term, of the conflict would shift away. from what has been the stasis of pursuing an increasingly illusory two state solution toward the eventual consolidation of a binational state. with the focus being on the democratic or nondemocratic character of that state. practically speaking, there would be legal challenges to moving the embassy to a proposed site in jerusalem. there were properties seized and claimed as palestinian in 1948. the move would provide new problemsties and legal union,u.s. and european that people that were confined to the past. given the negative implications , he made postpone. he could blame other actors for blocking the move. some of his advisers, like the secretary of defense nominee general james mattis, appeared to oppose policies backed by trump, and trump has prevent -- proven receptive to his views on other issues such as the use of torture. this is the sort of bold step that would distract from the circumstances and strengthen his political decorum. -- support. presents acivil war special challenge. in the first 100 days, addressing it requires working directly with russia. russia has supported the government of bashar al-assad, and putin has organized the latest cease-fire after regime gains in aleppo. trump has repeatedly said he wants to partner with russia to fight the islamic state, although it's not clear that russia prioritizes that fight over preserving a client regime in damascus. the proposed venue for forthcoming peace talks, kazakhstan, reflects russia's authority over this later attempt to broker named to the war. war.oker and and to the putin is widely thought to have facilitated the participation of turkey. these are some of the most important u.s. partners in the fight against the islamic. -- the islamic state. the question now becomes what sort of deal will put an attempt -- putin attempt to make with the u.s. over syria? what domestic political implications for president trump? ,ith the u.s. have to accept for example, a russian role in eastern europe or the annexation of crimea? sanctions.s. rollback against russia imposed by the obama administration? will the removal of those sanctions and directly benefit the secretary of state rex tillerson ahead of exxon mobil. will the senate confirm tillerson before or after the u.s. commits to joining russia in peace talks before they return to geneva? will senate republicans ultimately go along with morsi to challenge trump's cooperation with putin? how far will democrats go to undermine the new president by associating him with moscow. will trump feel obligated at some point to make a show of utin on syria or some other issue to prove that he is not beholden to him? these questions will have to be sorted out in the first 100 days. my point in the comparison to 1973 is that they will prove to be a distraction from the hard truth that no syrian peace talks can succeed unless they involve regime and its opponents, while providing for the cessation of fighters, weapons and money furnished by their respective external sponsors. stated priorities and his domestic political liabilities it seems unlikely president-elect will be able to contribute to such a broad based effort. to conclude my remarks with a final point about the election and the ongoing crisis in the middle east -- media coverage of -- often portrays the middle east as a role apart. operating according to a different scale of historical times from our own. many accounts suggest that the serial civil war and other regional -- syrian civil war and other regional conflicts have an underlying sectarian logic. they reenact ancient entities. -- entities. the appalling magnitude of the violence in syria can be explained only in terms of staggering inequalities within and between middle eastern states. wealthy governments and sponsors in saudi arabia, gulf states, and have poured money resources, weapons, fighters into syrian battlefield and stoke sectarian conflict for strategic reasons. at relatively low cost to themselves. at the beginning of 2017, we all shared the same world historical moments whether in north america , or the middle east, our however,reflect racial, religious, other kinds of identity-based conflicts can flourish in circumstances of great economic inequality. thank you. [applause] professor muhammad: good evening , everyone. i want to thank you james grossman for inviting me to be on the panel today. i hope we settle some debts. [laughter] i want tomuhammad: thank my fellow panelists for the contribution to this moment. and all of you for sticking around in a hot room on a cold, wintry day in denver. for you "star wars" fans, today 's plenary feels like the beginning of the jedi council to discuss priorities with the chancellor insidious as he sets out to destroy the republic as we know it. [laughter] [laughter] professor muhammad: you'll have to pardon my american studies proclivities. when i watched episode three: return of the jedi over the holidays, i couldn't help but explain the anti-fascist message of the saga. i have struggled to make sense of what happened but the visit -- of what happened, what the election results mean for the death of division in our nature. -- in our nation. what the future holds. i thought he might be a disguise, doubly deceitful in a good way. i thought president-elect trump might be able to transform himself into a statesman by virtue of the office he now holds. then he began to tweet about the millions of illegal voters. he began making cabinet appointments from the land of rejects in the island of doom. one ounce of optimism i maintained before thanksgiving gave way to fatigue. i have long realized how recognizable trump was in everyday life. some strain or variation of his many ism's coursing through the veins of people i know well. muslims even. his misogyny plays well to liberal and left readers of the new yorker and the nation, but i always suspected that trump and billy bush were more familiar to included, thann the editors of either magazine was willing to admit. for these familiar observers the , locker room talk sounded about right. rape culture is real, it is everywhere. the election will and culturally -- intellectual and cultural elite kept insisting trump was the outlier, not the norm. my critique has given way to uncertainty. now is a time for civil disobedience to the inevitable onslaught of obama era reversals. the affordable care act for starters. many of which, by my standards were too centrist. ,and to market friendly to begin with. too many opening bid concessions to the unreasonables across the aisle. too many initiatives and philanthropy inspired bootstrapping modeled on millionaire michael bloomberg's style of governance, and not enough on public policy. the obama era is behind us now. the truth is none of us in this , room know what is in store for the age of trump. i'm not talking about the dodge historians deploy for the media that we are bad religion the future. -- hasne is always wrong a bit hollow for me. it's not that we get search for clues in the past that might help us anticipate the future. it is that nothing quite fits. most every republican candidate for president since reagan has tried to out-reagan reagan. not trump. throughout all the demagogues in our history, none have been elected to the presidency. precedents for nativism and xenophobia? the call for a police state in pockets of america. the flirtations with the klan. the appeals for loyalty tests. all will sony and -- wilsonian to be sure. wilson purged the federal government of black people. unleash the full power of the fed to protect free speech and destroy the left. but woodrow wilson was a man of great intellect. internationalism and introspection. and despite his many flaws, he earned them and honed his flaws within the boundaries of democratic institutions. and indeed, helped to extend such an institution globally. trump has no such pedigree. if anything, he behaves like a petulant child. he is anti-statesman, and anti-intellectual. an isolationist. no one knows how to advise such a person to lead this nation. i suppose richard nixon behaves petulantly too.\ look how that turned out. is a man whose most well-known especially leadership is saying "you're fired" as host of his own reality television show. at least the celebrity turned president ronald reagan was a charming and decent person. at least the cowboy actor turned politician had been governor of the largest state in the union. the challenge before us today is not simply because we only study the past, it is that the past is missing a whole chapter in this american journey. the robber barons bent the public good to serve their interests. the billionaire plutocrats, of which trump is only one, want their cake and eat it too. they want the procedure running the state as well. -- the prestige of running the state as well. trump's election is the most grievous blow that the american idea has suffered in my lifetime. the kennedy and king assassinations and the 9/11 attacks were crimes and tragedies. the wars in vietnam and iraq were disastrous mistakes. but the country recovered. for democratic process to elevate a man expressing total disregard for democratic norms and institutions is worse. the american republic is based on rules, but has depended on its survival on norms. standards of behavior, conduct toward fellow citizens. especially, critics and opponents. that is decent beyond what the letter of the law dictates. trump is saying -- them all. given these uncertainties and trying to wear my big boy pants, here is a sketch of what i think should happen with president trump. this is not about specific policy proposals. more about a way of opening communication and creating the possibilities for impacting his choices. in many ways, i am less worried about him in particular than his combination of cabinet choices and empowered far right republican majority. on climate change, i would ask the president and his first 100 days to sit down with leading scientists. there may be no more urgent the need for open lines of dialogue than that. he has never had reason to listen to environmentalists. he needs to hear their side of the story, to let them make mayr case that fossil fuels still be a necessary evil, and most certainly, a profitable one, but investments in alternative energy are not an option. time is ticking now. mar-a-lago or any other coastal temple of wealth won't do so well underwater. that is the fact that might peek's, that might put his feet on the ground. brian stephenson, a lawyer in alabama teaches us how important proximity is to creating empathy. there is a lot trump doesn't know because nothing about his profligate life has demanded more of him. when he sits down with black lives matter activists for the first time, i know he will be different. when ever i taught red county students at indiana university many years ago, especially in the big survey course, i am sure that a lot of people were not happy learning a more complicated story of the past. from course evals, i knew how much they resisted me for delivering the lectures. i knew it was an antidote to the tyranny of a difference. my job is not to shape their ideas but to help them identify their own by seeing the menu of options available. trump has been in bubbles inside of bubbles for a long time. billionaire bubbles, celebrity bubbles, bully bubbles, bigotry bubbles. outside of the election contest, it is time to pop some of those bubbles and put the menus in front of him and his administration. the stakes are too high, the work is too difficult, the choices are not simple. in my field of expertise, criminal justice and policing is tough stuff. border security is, too. trump's campaign promised to nationalize stop and frisk. this is really not beyond the pale in mainstream america. it is an opening for dialogue. making him the bogeyman is not only counterproductive, but it belies the recent history of liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, northerners and southerners responsible for our current state of affairs. everyone is implicated. that is why sandra bland died in small-town texas. alton sterling in baton rouge, alabama -- louisiana. eric garner in new york city. ande are black relatives friends of mine in chicago with some of the most visible, creative, and brilliant young female activists from black youth project 100 can be found, measured by our own historian biographer, ella baker's biographer. these people despise trump. and yet these intimates of mine are thinking out loud about whether or not it's time to call in the national guard to end the plague of violence in the city. policing's connection to inequality, to education divestments, and mass incarceration isn't even on their radar. why should it be on trump's? activists,ets with an kanye westo can join in. maybe you can get out of his blacks living in hell bubble. jeff sessions as the new ag likely to be put in place will be exposed to new ideas. that will help bridge the yawning divide between black lives and blue lives. on border security, barack obama did not build a wall or a big fence, as trump has promised. but he did build the biggest criminalization system in the nation's system. he captured the unprecedented title of deporter in chief. on some demented policy fronts, the lines are blurrier than the election cycle and the media commentary would have us believe. i have already admitted that i have no idea what trump is capable of. if the charge tonight is to believe in the force, that force has to be one of communication and dialogue. and it historically informed understanding of our shared responsibility for the nation we have built. this may sound quite quaint for ready for of those massive civil disobedience, of which my good friend, historian, and new yorker writer reminds us is a democratic tradition right for expansion. in the context of this assessable protest of the standing rock sioux tribe, he writes wave the protests. in the days after the election look less like spontaneous outrage and more like a preview of what the next four years may hold. 200,000 women will decide on the on the capital after the election. democracy may be under attack in the congress, but it is likely to strive in the streets. civil disobedience is not only democracy at work, it is a form of communication and dialogue. another way to think about this is this -- as long as we keep talking, we are not killing each other. episode three of the star wars saga ends with a bloodbath, but with the rise of darth vader. the mass killings of the jedi knights, the young ones are slaughtered. the two survivors are yoda and obi-wan kenobi. both of whom go into exile, but not before saving luke and leia. they have a new hope of episode ur, where this saga began in our lifetime, 40 years ago. sometimes, our way forward is demanding looking back. this evening reminds us that we are keepers of the past, storytellers of humanity, and stewards of our civic culture. we are communicators. we have the obligations to face the facts before us. with humility drawing on the , wisdom of the ages, it's try -- triumphs and tragedies. the work we do off-campus has always been as important as what we do on campus. we have been doing far less of it off-campus lately according to the american academy of arts and scientists. let president trump's first 100 days renew our collective energy. let this be a time for active engagements in teaching our students and neighbors. college ministers and local politicians how to think historically, how best to weigh the choices and the decisions we face as a nation. the candidate demagogue may himself transforming time, just as did darth vader in the end. this much is true -- whatever comes of the age of trump, he will not last forever. prepared to remember your pre-trump ideals. make sure they survive into a post-trump world. thank you. [applause] professor o'mara:: thank you so much. it is great to be here. thank you to all the people responsible for organizing this. i hope i can do my best to add to this conversation. my piece is going to talk about the economy, stupid. to talk about a visit -- a bit of recent history. in the 2016 election, donald trump ran and won while breaking all the rules of modern presidential campaigning. he didn't have consultants, he didn't have a field operation he blew past all the low energy , establishment republicans of the primary and seized an electoral college victory over hillary clinton in the general. it was a true antiestablishment change election of a magnitude that the united states has not seen in some time. and we have change elections with regularity. taught decide republican economic orthodoxy like an embrace of free trade. he is not doing daily intelligence briefings, he is doing his own thing. on the campaign trail, in one dimension, he was very conventional. i think this gives -- to follow remarks, this gives a window into where things might go next. on the campaign trail, he adhered to one familiar ritual of campaign season, which is making big, bold promises to bring back jobs and economic prosperity, and to start doing it in the first 100 days. when it came to the economy, he trump sounded like a lot of other would-be presidents on the campaign trail. in franklin roosevelt talked 1932, about putting men back to work and fighting for the forgotten man. in trump promised to massively 2016, increase jobs and call out to the forgotten men and women. in 1992, bill clinton talked about creating good jobs for our about fair trade laws and creating good jobs where people. in 2016, trump talked about fairer trade laws. and turning america into a magnet for new jobs. in 1980, ronald reagan declared that it is time to put america back to work. for those who abandoned hope, we will restore hope. we will welcome them into the great national crusade to make america great again. in 2016, trump, you know the rest of that. the prompt of this session, which is what do historians add to this conversation? we are not pundits, which can be a good thing. this was not a good year for political punditry. [laughter] professor o'mara:: what history shows us is that in some ways, despite all of the rule breaking, all the destruction, in some ways, trump is similar to his predecessors and he is coming into offices with promises in hand. in this 100 a framework before him. the study of what does and does not happen in the first 100 days is important and useful. and might be illuminating to the president-elect and the people around him. the first 100 days has fabled status. in american residential politics. roosevelt's tornado of legislative activity in the first 100 days in 1933 has set a standard that has loomed over every president who has followed. it is an impossible standard to meet. the first 100 days happened in a moment of local crisis that vastly enlarged the scope of political possibility. because of this distinctive 1933, even though president after president has subsequently made bold first 100 a promises, it doesn't go as well as planned. faced, for example, fierce opposition in a democratic led congress and didn't manage to get much legislation passed, although his popularity remains high. bill clinton had democratic control of the house and senate. he came in with a hugely ambitious agenda that included economic stimulus, health care reform, welfare reform. by the time they got to the end of the first 100 days nothing , got done, they were working on the economic package and that didn't get on to the end of the summer. and it comes to actually producing economic results, that which is what the public has been calibrated to expect. jobs, immediate results. the first 100 days have fallen short every time. 1933 included. the case against the first 100 days as a fair assessment of what a is going to be is that presidents who have had frustrating first 100 days went on to be two-term presidents. their reputations eventually exceeded missteps and failures of the earliest days in office, and they ultimately ended up residing over economic expansions that went some way to meet their big campaign promises. what this history tells us, and tells the president elect, is that meaningful economic and job growth is not a product of the first 100 days. it is a long game. longer than 100 days or four years or eight years. often, the credit for economic growth is shared across many different presidencies. that may be something that to the president-elect may not be welcome news. economic growth comes from public investment in people, ideas, and technologies for which there is not a market. on this, let me focus on the story of the technology industry, something i know about. it is an industry that trump has demonstrated a great interest in. he sees it as an important engine of job and economic growth going forward. in eisenhower's era, giant investments in research development, highridge occasion propelled an age that fueled the high-tech revolution that gave birth to the large companies whose leaders were sitting around the table at trump tower two weeks ago. these were not economic or job creation policies, but enacted in the name of cold war defense. it was a massive case of unintended consequences. in the kennedy and johnson years, a similar high-tech boom came out of the space program. apollo rockets needed high-tech components in them, so the launching pad for silicon valley was the rocket program. the second place that economic dynamism and jobs come from, the job growth that happens over time, is from internationalism and immigration. history shows us that the opening of america's doors, bringing in people, and having exchanges and a truly global outlook on the world has been very good for the economy. now, it has also been the culprit for the imbalances in the economy, but focusing on the high-tech industry, you see powerful examples of how immigration opened doors, was a cornerstone of the prosperity that trump is trying to recapture in his program. you have international exchange programs started under harry truman that continued under subsequent presidencies that bring the best and brightest scholars from the world to american universities. the american higher education system is leading in the world, not because americans are the best, but because the best in the world have come to the united states to teach and to study. and many of them stay. similarly, the expansion of the immigration after an act in 1965 has been a huge job creator. it has created small businesses at a rate of a greater number than native people do. trump has pointed to this as an engine of job growth. if you want to keep that engine primed, you have to keep on opening those doors. an example from silicon valley is a vivid one, there has been no better place to see the impact of these new waves of immigration, post-1965, then the valley. indian and chinese foreign entrepreneurs alone were at the helm of 24% of the technology enterprises started between 1980 and 1998 in the valley. a formative and hugely lucrative time for high-tech from pc to internet era. the economic upside of the open door policy has been clear to the most successful occupants of the oval office. ronald reagan declared in 1981 -- our strength comes from our immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. the third and last key piece of the puzzle -- this is a truly long game indeed, income security. the remarkable 25 years of rising incomes that happened after world war ii were not just because of these big investments in industry, but also in government programs that increase individual economic security. this was not just a top result of top-down action on the part of politicians, but the result of sustained activism and protest from the bottom up. telling that story of how that crafted, and how critical that is to broader economic prosperity is something that historians can bring to the table and bring to the conversation. the tech industry is another great example of this. most of the people who founded iconic tech companies were not born rich. steve jobs, his father was a machinist who did not finish high school. the cofounder of intel was the son of an iowa clergyman. they grew up in a moment of political commitment to expanded opportunity and prosperity of , higher education, of job opportunity, and of growth. it was fueled by a different outlook on the role of the federal government than we currently hold -- then the leaders of both parties currently hold. this would be something i would be saying if hillary clinton had won the election. this requires a change that goes beyond the result of this particular election. so what should the next president's priorities be for the next 100 days? atience and p compromise. if donald trump really wants to create jobs and lasting economic transformation, he needs to be ready to play it long. some of the people who could help him and the people around him and the people in the political realm in washington and beyond understand the multiple dimensions about long game, our historians. teachers of history and students of history, in the academy and beyond it. let's get to work. thank you. [applause] professor pomeranz: thank you. as i understand it, my job is to talk about china. the united states and china has a lot of of issues with each other, i would say. reflecting china's position as both an american partner and rival. some cases where the relationship is ambiguous, like china's investment in asia, including energy pipelines reaching all the way to europe should be welcome to the united , states in so far as that investment helps these countries develop and give some of them on alternative to market dependence on russia. and sending people there is guest laborers. it is probably not so welcome in that it encourages development of fossil fuels or resource grabs at predatory prices. these are all intertwined, with some issues have a stronger historical dimension than others. what can a historical analysis tell us? first, historical memory matters even when it is inaccurate. it is, for instance, a big stretch to say that taiwan has always been an integral part of china. chinese rule of the island lasted from 1683 to 1895. until the first half of the 20th century, even chinese nationalists rarely talked about recovering control there. compared to the same people talking at enormous length about holding or recovering last parts of manchuria and mongolia, as well as treaty port concessions on the mainland. ssion withsion -- obse liberating taiwan began only when it became think i should ask last days. none of that changes the fact that by now that taiwan is part of a single china is deeply ingrained. no chinese leader would refrain from retaliating about any challenge to that claim. they can target taiwanese people in investments in the mainland, which are hugely important to taiwanese countries. they can restrict tourism in both directions. taiwan leads the foreign exchange for mainland visitor and many taiwanese want to see their ancestral villages on the mainland. even short of using force, they have plenty of tools at their disposal. they won't let it be used as a bargaining chip on other issues, and because they can easily target taiwan rather than the united states, the also won't fear counter escalation. quiet support for taiwan may make sense. it has become, in many ways, and admirably democratic and prosperous society. and one under considerable stress. it is interesting to note that taiwan's per capita income has grown 50% over the past 20 years, while real wages have been stagnant. sound familiar? echoing patterns for much of the developed world. in taiwan, this is not led to the rise of pseudo-populist extremism. at least, so far. that is something to support. advice to my to fellow academics, something to study as well. really loud support for taiwan is likely to back off. the taiwan situation is also a specific example of a second historical generalization. the people's republic never got the memo about the inevitable decline of the nationstate. they are absolutely obsessed with internal security and stability. in many cases, this makes them conservative. in the 1990's after the soviet union collapsed, china settled a number of border dispute with the new central asian republics on fairly generous terms. excepting considerably less than half of the disputed territory, though those new states were very weak. something that seems surprising, in sharp contrast with their aggressive stand against stronger adversaries in the south china sea and the border with india. one key reason for the difference, the central asian states, the chinese perceive potential partners in monitoring restive muslims and strengthening their control over the province. that commitment about what they call, non-interference, has other uses for the united states. while the chinese, like others have clearly hacked into the , computers of many u.s. politicians and of both political parties, they do this as a matter of espionage. they have never tried to weaponize that intelligence to influence an internal political process the way the russians did. because they saw that interference as a red line that nobody should cross. that is the other side of it. it is not all that reassuring. the prc has an expansive notion of what noninterference is an -- in its own internal affairs means. nothing that is happened in the last two years has made liberalization look more attractive to them. the new laws regulating foreign backed ngo's, which includes everything from the branches of foreign universities and the ford foundation to the u.s. china business council, the american bar association, and hundreds of smaller and often groups monitoring the environment, is a much more restrictive law than a de facto regime that has prevailed over the past couple of decades. internet censorship is getting more vigorous. the government has a new and rather nasty looking plan to assign people social credit scores based on their speech acts. the government has gotten much more bold about pressuring other states to extradite chinese dissidents abroad or to look the other way while some of them are disappeard. xi jinping leader is the most authoritarian they have had for 40 years. the situation is not unique to china. he seems genuinely worried if he does not crack down hard on corruption and foreign thought, the basis of rule could be undermined. it is impossible to say that he is completely wrong here, regardless of what we think of his strategy for dealing with that. and regardless of the fact that corruption rather than foreign ideas is the real problem, combined with an inevitable slowing of the economy, horrible environmental problems, and other sources of discontent. it is not clear how much foreigners can resist some of these measures without being counterproductive, but some things can be expanded beyond -- chinese police apparatus, beyond its own borders, which is seizing dissidents, or in an expansive reading of the new ngo law holding parent entities , abroad responsible for the allegedly subversive speech of ngo's they sponsor in china need to be resistive. both as a matter of ideals, and as a matter of preserving a level playing field for economically relevant nonprofit activity. for instance, monitoring whether guarantees of these in labor conditions of a supply chain are being honored. if you care about america being able to compete, you should care about the labor standard of people overseas. there is no way those standards will be enforced entirely from the top down. we have more than just an ideal ist interest in protecting the space in which groups like labor and environmental ngo's function. this leads me to one further observation, and one last area for discussion. the observation is that the obsession with security is about both short and long run security. everyone who matters in china is an insider. they do think long-term about preserving the system may benefit from. that means that though they will bargain hard, they are genuinely interested in playing constructive roles in climate change, for instance, and of gaining prestige of having a leadership role on that issue false of them will give them. de-nuclearising -- the peninsula, and and making the iran deal work, all bets are off if they sense these efforts are likely to collapse anyway. then they will take full advantage. the area that this leads to, which you probably expected to come up earlier, is the economy. here, i think this historical lesson is that while the past matters, we also have remember that things change. was artificially depressing its currency for a while. there is room for argument over how many u.s. jobs that might've cost. regardless of what you think of that, they are not doing that anymore. they are not likely to in the near future. they are now much more worried about capital flight, stoked by the anticorruption campaign and partly by a lack of attractive places to put assets in china right now. real estate and stock markets almost certainly overvalued. equipment looks less attractive than they did when growth projects gas -- when both projections were higher. the moment they want to inflate the currency. moreover, china passed an important historical milestone a couple of years ago, thanks to the rapid aging of the population, the total labor force has started shrinking. the pace at which that happens will accelerate as lower birth rates continue to ripple through the economy. the urban workforce will continue to grow for a while as people leave the countryside, but that has limits too. we are facing a china that is going to have very different priorities. ones that in some ways should make it easier for us to work with them. there is less obsession with capturing export markets at any price, and more with a priming domestic consumption, though that is going to be hard until home prices level off. switching towards services, crucial for meeting environmental goals. we tend to focus for understand will reasons, on china's air pollution problems, but water problems are arguably even worse. there are over 100,000 water related protests incidents as the government calls them every year in china. this is a matter of enormous importance for them. they recognize that the only way they will cope with their environmental problem -- they will have to do many things, one of them is they have to move toward a service economy. that is something that is good for us. they will be targeting higher value added kinds of production. that is a possible place attention. there continue to be significant sources of economic tension with china over intellectual property, the safety of certain chinese exports, nontariff barriers of various sorts, dumping of subsidized products abroad, labor standards, environmental standards, and so on. one step would be to coordinate more closely to the eu who have similar complaints. the bargaining table should not be cluttered with yesterday's issues, even if they are red meat for some american constituencies. this is the most important bilateral relationship in the world, and probably will remain so for quite some time. i've touched only a few parts of it here. i think the point is there is no need to make it more complicated than it is by also fighting yesterday's wars. meanwhile, conducting the relationship via tweet and soundbite will only strengthen the chinese leadership's conviction that they have the better political system and can wait us out on those issues. -- most issues. a view that has been strongly reinforced by recent events in the west. after years in which opinion on that point was much more fluid and diverse. thank you. [applause] professor wilentz: let me add my jim, i haveand and learned a lot. i do not have a particular expertise in any part of policy. i've learned a lot. i have different remarks. i think this is just a guess, but my presence on this panel has something to do with the fact that the organizer might have thought not only the donald trump not be president-elect, but that hillary clinton would. i had that speech all written. [laughter] professor wilentz: it did not work out. so i had to figure out not only what i was thinking, but when i -- what i had to say tonight. now you're going to get a really pessimistic talk. [laughter] professor wilentz: i'm going to concentrate more on donald trump and trying to understand him historically. i will get to that in a second. i have a couple of texts to start with, that caught my eye. they follow what i want to say tonight. one comes out of the daily news, on the headline says donald january 3. trump appears next to convicted felon with monster ties at new year's eve party. donald trump rang in the new year together with a convicted felon with ties to the notorious gambino crime family boss john gotti. a recently released video has revealed. he can be seen in a video obtained by the palm beach daily news, cheering loudly as a taxi of clad trump runs through a number of campaign promises . quote the taxes are coming down, regulations are coming off, we will get rid of obamacare. trump can be heard saying, as an exuberant man stands next to him, pumping his fist in the air. his appearance with trump may raise some eyebrows. beyond in felony conviction for 1989 possessing possessing stolen artwork, he's to be friends with john gotti. he was also shot three times and left for dead in a 1980 incident. authorities described it as a authorities described as "a hit was good and it goes on to talk about trump's relationship with him. there is nobody like him, he is a special guy. i'm quoting donald trump. the other article, the headline le pen woos putin." -- to recognize russia's annexation of crimea if she became president. she portrayed her center-right rival as too right-wing. such a move would signal a change in relations with russia and put paris on a collision course with london and berlin which both condemned the annexation. the national foreign leader, who hopes russian banks will fund of the election campaign went on to putin went on by expressing support for a president assad of syria. miss le pen set out on election strategy based on leftist economics and an anti-economic stance, euro skepticism, and a shift on foreign policy in moscow. well. evidently, it can happen here. since november 8, various reporters, colleagues, students, friends, and family members have asked me to tell them how and why it happened and whether there is any precedent in the history of american presidential politics. allpect many of you, if not of you, have had people ask you the same question. my answer is no, there is no precedent. contrary to the assertions of a few confused pundits and self-serving backers of the president-elect that he is a 21st century andrew jackson. as to how and why trump won the 2016 campaign, i have my own not so historical views i am happy to share and debate. they sometimes cause me to break into a rant or descend into gloom, i think they are better left for after hours and off the record. our assignment is to try to give advice to an incoming administration and i scraped and i have actually come up with two bitsen late -- citizenly of advice. i think it is worth talking about how we ought to think about trump historically. to pins very difficult down, which is exactly the way he wants it. i would like to suggest at least one possible historical approach to understand where the america from which he has emerged, which may tell you something about the man himself and how he will govern as president. comes as a surprise, but should not be a shock that a man of trump's talents has won the presidency. even if they doubted the prospect, thoughtful observers of american politics have long pointed to the facts and forces that could cause such a thing. well before philip roth and -- or send care lewis -- sinclair lewis wrote their chilling novels, well before the rise of modern authoritarian politics, writing in 1888 in the second volume of the american commonwealth, james bryce included a brief section called "liability to be misled: influence of demagogues" in which he took note of american traits. "the want of trained political tought," the tendency sentimentalism which marks all , large masses of men. and how those traits left people vulnerable to what he called the fallacious reasoning of adventurers. he also believed that the checks and balances of the american constitutional system, the same checks and balances which impeded good legislation and created the stalemate upon which demagogues could thrive, those checks to him made it highly amprobable that "-- that " plausible adventurer could clamber into the presidential chair and could conspire with a congressional ring." it looks a great deal more probable if we re-examine the writings of richard hofstadter on the underside of the 1890's legacy. nowadays, many american u.s. a -- historians discredit the analysis as exaggerated and a slander on social movements. who can doubt that he captured a powerful and persistent and for this moment, at least triumphant strain in our past , and present politics? dedicated to restoring a bygone mythic american greatness. founded on what he listed as a few key elements. the idea of a golden age, the concept of national harmonies, -- of struggles. conspiracy theory of history, the doctrine of the primacy of money. hofstetter went on to locate precisely those paranoid elements in the mccarthy-it conservatism of the 1950's and the goldwater movement in the 1960's. you might find it easy enough to find connections to the tea party and the trump campaign. there are some american political and cultural archetypes that may appear to prefigure trump, but most do not fit. andrew jackson, whatever you think of him, declared war on precisely the kind of swindler capitalism that trump practices and celebrates. bulgarian -- vul garian. howard york was in ideologue. comes closest to embodying the ethos of the robber barons described in "the fury of the leisure class." with their trophy wives and crests, andfamily anything devoid of productive labor. trump was born in a very different place. that place was the chic manhattan of the 1970's and the 1980's as described best buy tom wolfe in "bonfire of the vanities." a very particular world of self-declared masters of the unisource -- universe, driven by tabloids, cynical public servants. this was the manhattan that fred trump's boy desperately wanted themequer because as the song went "if he could make it there, he can make it anywhere." sinatra is part of this whole mix. trump never really would make it. he never will really make it, which helps explain the projection and raise that are among his the way he went about hallmarks. trying to make it, he became the donald trump with whom we must now reckon. at the very center of trump's new york, the new york of the 1970's and early 1980's was the premier picture and -- fixture and embodiment, roy cohn. not the red hunting roy cohn that most historians know, but the later roy cohn. the man whom did the most to inspire and instruct and construct the donald. now, at you can see last, 30 years after his death, america has made way for roy cohn's greatest creation, donald trump. perhaps tony kushner will have a write a new scene or maybe new act to "angels in america." maybe even a whole new play. after honing his skills in viciousness as to mccarthy's right hand man and golden boy, roy cohn is credited and him can -- n capable -- incapable the clients included the mafia bosses like john gotti and others. as well as the catholic archdiocese of new york and the new york yankees. [laughter] it was only natural for the young trump to seek out roy cohen to do battle against the nixon justice department who was suing him and his father over racial discrimination. after two years of litigation, andtrumps had to settle donald was awestruck by his take no prisoners style and roy cohn took to donald as a handsome and suggestible acolyte. in his red leather booths at the anyone club and his townhouse on 68th street and the dance floor of studio 54, the self hating jew and closet homophobe introduced trump to all the right people. including links to his clients. one of whom who would be convicted of big rigging on the trump plaza and another who owned the company that provided the cement used instead of the steel girders in trump tower. those links lead trump to a long length of useful mob related figures. twoy documented by reporters. it was in this underworld connected menacing mill you that -- milleu that roy cohn thrived. lessons to which this day trump says were absolutely invaluable to him. proteges, roy cohn's -- hasstone, whose known said trump learned from a master. "a brilliant strategist who understood the political system and how to play it like a violin." as it happens, back in october, when the election outlook look was almost's outlook certain to be different than what it turned out to be i had , the opportunity to appear on a panel with roger stone. i got to ask him what he thought roy cohn, the anti-communist scourge would've made of his boy, donald trump becoming a , useful idiot for vladimir putin. [laughter] apart from calling my reference to roy cohn a low blow, we were liberal,o a pro-clinton audience. for standingroger up there. he avoided answering. you can see what trump sees in x-kgb authoritarian. it goes beyond matters of policy. trump'sbeyond where isolationism mixes with prudence 's schemes. is political. it is incontrovertible that putin's intelligence agencies gave trump important, if not crucial assistance in the 2016 campaign. there is a closer affinity -- an affinity that has nothing to do with ideology, even though the national political appeals of what might end up being known as "the putin turned," are nearly -- my son james called it the -- they are nearly identical from from prague to paris to trump tower. in a recent issue of the new york review of books, and silent -- an exiled russian writer describes the affinity between trump and putin has an inclination for the mafia state based on a slows -- closed circle of absolute royalty, driven by grade, with money -- greed, with money and power to strip it by the patriarch. given trump's formation at the , -- of a mob consiglio re- it is a warning to be taken seriously. what advice can the likes of me or any historian -- what advice can we give to what may turn out to be an abnormal white house or a family regime than an administration? it has been said that if trump fails it is because he succumbs to incompetence, corruption, or authoritarianism. two would be first handled -- could be handled by the existing constitutional system. the third, not so much. imagine if evidence were to come happened,i suspect that there was collaboration between the kremlin and the trump campaign and words like treason were being banded about the senate, how president trump would react. it would be dangerous. in the face of that, my first piece of advice is really pretty obvious. mr. trump -- this is not for the first 100 days, assuming he lasts 100 days. mr. trump, adhere stickley to your oath of office -- strictly to your oath of office. capitalizetries to on his lack -- lack of ideology and fascination with men of authority, especially military men. trump frequently cites his admiration of george patton and douglas macarthur on the basis of a single conversation with his designated secretary of defense, retired marine corps general james mattis. he repudiated waterboarding as -- his enthusiasm for waterboarding as an interrogation technique. wouldond piece of advice be to follow the advice of another american general, a greater general in some accounts than any of those that trump habitually mentions, who also has to have been elected president of the united states. dwight d. eisenhower is remembered for the military industrial complex. in a letter, he offered a success "to attain any it is quite clear that the , federal government cannot avoid or responsibilities which escape responsibilities which the mass of people believe should be undertaken by it. the political processes of our country are such that if the rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything even to the possible , and drastic change in the constitution. this is what i mean by my confidence in moderation in government. should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance , and labor law programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. there is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things, their number is negligible, and they are stupid." i would tell president-elect trump, that although that number is no longer negligible, indeed that splinter group is now , trump's nominal political party. that political party now controls every level of american government. nevertheless the general's words , are just as true now as they were in 1954. to heed to them, trump would have to fire practically the entire cabinet he just named. it is a long shot. trump made his mark as a celebrity by firing people. just maybe, coming from a general, trump might pay attention to his words. just don't tell him what president eisenhower thought of roy: -- roy cohn. thanks. [applause] >> we have a few minutes for questions. not very many minutes. if you will keep your questions concise and to the point. please step up to the microphone if you have any questions. >> thank you all. i teach in canada and i am a united states historian born in the u.s. so i -- i want to spin it a bit. what would your advice be to what is left to the democratic party? what bothers me, although i did dr. mohammed pointed out, that it is obama that signed the bill i can support more people than the 42 other people that held that office for the previous 200 years. it did not seem to get many liberals very upset. i guess i am leading the witnesses. that is what i would say to the democratic party -- to become the democratic party again. what would you all say to the opposition? >> does one of you want to answer the question? >> the democratic party is obviously troubled. a year ago everyone was talking about the collapse of the republican party. it did not happen that way although the republican party is in bad shape, too. let's not think that is not the case. democrats are in terrible shape. they are a minority and they have no leverage anywhere. that is the thing about the trump administration is that there is no place for the opposition to hold onto. the big question i have been hearing is whether the democrats ought to do what mitch mcconnell did and say no, no, no to everything trump's attempts or whether they should try to triangulate with republicans on things they agree about like infrastructure. i am no political strategist, but i think the first of those is actually smarter for the democrats because any trump victory will help trump. that is just a political guess. who is the democratic party now? nancy pelosi? chuck schumer? the local level? governors? it is pretty small. they don't have much of a bench. you need people in the end. how you're going to find the party -- it is not so much even mending the risks that were left after the last primary. lots of things were left behind and a lot of people do not show up for her because of what happened in the primaries. thatnot convinced that insurgency is necessarily going to transform the democratic party because two out of three immigrants that voted, voted for clinton. i think the democrats are going to have to do one thing above all landed -- that is >> other survive. question? -- that is survive. >> other question? >> everybody is in shock. >> i would add to that that they need to survive and make sure the constitution survives. as important as all these policy issues are, probably the most important thing of all is in shoring that in 2020 we have a reasonably fair election. i think the democrats would have a reasonable chance of winning as weak as they are, because i , do think that trump will crash and burn on a whole lot of issues. >> one of the shocking things that i was critical of the president for not saying more about the hacks and -- hacking before the election. i think national security was at stake. that was an attack on our system of government. they were pretty sure that is what was going on. i was quite disturbed by that. then the business with the fbi and director comey, this is a tainted election. there is no way around that. the question is how we are going to move on after this? what hangs on the investigation now is where do we go with our next election? >> one practical matter which -- unremarked on is that they rigged the primary. they either have to do a better job of bringing -- rigging the primary where they do not get caught, or they have to convince the foot soldiers of the party when there is a primary that the best person will emerge and not therson who has been given nomination on a silver platter, which is what happened with clinton. >> i just add that as we know the death sentence has been predicted for one of the two major parties again and again and again and they survive and somehow adjust to fit. we went into this election day -- this election cycle with two parties that were in big trouble and we come out of it with two parties that are in big trouble with internal divisions that are ,undamental and -- one thing one thing this has done as it has activated activism and had -- in a way that people in this room do not like to engage in counterfactual's, but if there had been a hillary clinton victory, there still would have been a lot of discontent within the democratic party and within progressivism and it the democratic party would still be in a pickle. isanswer when people ask me it is the state and local level and that is something -- we focus relentlessly on the presidency and to write about the intention -- attention is always focused on washington, d.c., but there is other levels of political drama and governance and other things going on and that contributed significantly to how and why the pattern of voting in 2016 and where they -- where the rebuilding will happen is that has to happen in all three levels of government. >> i agree with that. i would add that winning is always better than losing. won, the democratic party would be in much better shape than it is now and there are ways in which, in fact, i think the divisions of the democratic party were not as profound as many people think and that it might have even been narrowed. i know that was on the mind of people who thought that she was going to win, but that did not happen. defeat is an orphan, but it will also kill you. that is what the democrats have to worry about. >> i think it is interesting that the subtitle of the panel is "priorities for a new president." strategizing about how democrats recover. the question about sort of the dilemma between the democrats deciding who they are and where they stand and overcoming their own internal divisions versus waiting the kind of fight a professor was talking about they should wage against the trump agenda. >> my historical comment is that white voters in the south about 30 or 40 years ago and more -- from thepped democratic party to the republican party. we saw white, working-class voters in much of the midwest inft to the republican party these states that had larger white populations into the republican camp. on the coast, where we have more diverse populations, we saw democratic electoral college victories. whether there is a -- what future the panelists party'sthe two efforts to appeal to white working-class voters. ofi have the advantage ignorance here because i do not study the united states because it is far too strange. -- thisthere are things term, the white working-class -- there is an enormous amounts we do not know. there was a really interesting piece in "the times" about the white working-class and when you --lowed it, what that turn term turned out to me as whites without a college degree. that is not the same. it is a very different story. i think there are basic things we do not yet know. you see all of this data, for instance, it correlates with voting patterns and income. that yourans, we know classes more than your economic status and even your economic status is not just about your income. the person who is making $60,000 a year and lives in a house that they inherited debt free from their parents is very different from the person who makes $60,000 a year and is trying to pay mortgage and yet the data never seems to have things like assets in it. i think there is a tremendous amount we don't know and that we should not assume that this trump vote is a sort of revolt of the working-class in the traditional sense. >> i would like to add to that. i have been thinking of the future and we always dream about future dissertations and books written in 30 years. there will be interesting ones written on how the modern media of 2016 created class consciousness in many ways. thisf the things about election, a lot of college-educated white voters who for trump, too. it was a question of race and democratsathy against and hillary clinton in particular. i think one of the important things -- we have talked a lot andt trump's personality this was an election about two personalities and we are talking here about party and the role of how well the two parties did in the election, but really, what the presidential election was about in particular this year was it was a candidate-centered election of a magnitude we have not seen in some time, in part because the candidates had very two high negatives. part of the explanatory does come into these two individuals in the public eye for more than two or three decades and about whom people had very strong and fixed opinions, particularly hillary clinton. >> also, just to put it in context a little bit more, in,000 votes -- 80,000 votes three states and we would be having a completely different conversation than we are having now and it would have been remarked upon how hillary clinton managed to get enough of the -- of a slice of the white working-class voters you are defining, i think, to win those three states and to carry off a pretty big electoral college victory. we should be careful about seeing the margins. this is a very strange outcome and a very strange campaign. when i say it is tainted, i mean it. i think the outcome is so clouded by the events that happened, especially over the last month and a half of the campaign, that i do not want to make too many strong sociological judgments about the voting patterns and so forth without all of that out there. i just don't and given the closeness of it. and also given certain very bad decisions i think that were made by the clinton campaign and how they handled it. that is inside baseball. i would to be more careful about making grand judgments. the second point i wanted to make his we have been here before. stan greenberg wrote a whole --k about how macomb county the county that carried it for trump went to reagan in the 1980's. they, back and forth and back and forth and this year and f of them either did not show up or voted for trump that made a difference. it was a very narrow difference. i very much enjoyed all of the remarks tonight so far, but i am also very struck in an election in which gender played such an enormous role. no one has addressed gender as an important issue in the first 100 days. do any of you have comments about that? thank you. >> who wants to go first? >> we all have gender. >> we certainly do. >> let me think about this. >> part of the problem is that if hillary clinton had been elected we would have very different answers about this. roe vs. wade will probably be killed. planned parenthood the funding defunding?ing -- it will likely disappear. as far as those issues, it looks like it will be a disaster. i'm not sure what trump's gender ares-a-vis except reactionary. in some ways you are back to 1973 for a different reason. i did mention that 200,000 women going to washington, d.c. the day after the election. women have to also have a national conversation about what they are voting on, feminism, gender, economic visibility, very clear to me through all of the coverage of the trump voters who represented the former obama rainbow coalition, particularly latino voters, that a number of latina voters would continuously -- that i happened to watch or catch on msnbc would continuously respond to the badgering question, how can you support trump? keptre a woman and a few saying, i am not concerned about being a woman, i am concerned about the economic future of this country and so, there are 200,000 women concerned about being women and their is a majority population of women who showed up at the polls who are conflicted about what those of gender issues mean or their women'stive rights or rights issues and we have to come to terms with that. i do not think trump is going to be the arbiter of that. i think it will depend on what takes place in terms of our national conversation particularly led by women. >> women voters have been confounding expectations since 1920. the assumptions about how women are going to vote and then the reason for why they do vote have been interpreted and misinterpreted again and again. i think it is this cauldron of race, class, and gender in which everyone is living at operating. also yes, a female candidate who , was boundary breaking and that -- in that she was the first major candidate for a presidential party and came close to winning the whole thing. she was a woman who was atypical in so many ways. she was this public figure and was incredibly privileged. talk about living in a bubble, she had been living in a bubble for a very long time because of her role. she had the weirdest job in american politics, first lady. it was a very highly gendered job and we all know way too much about her marriage. those things also i think clouded our ability -- maybe when the dust settles and for us in this room it is a couple -- maybe we will be able to make better sense of the ultimate impact was of her candidacy at how historic it was and what the legacy will be. >> since we are running late, maybe one last question. >> i just want to thank everyone for your comments. it is a great opportunity to have this conversation. on washingtonrch is not just for women, anyone who believes in women's rights can be there. thank you so much for state and local politics. as a resident of north carolina, we will be the only one that has elections this year. donate to north carolina, the democratic party. [laughter] >> we approve of this message. >> thank you all. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: author and historian harold holzer talks about abraham lincoln's views on immigration policy. here is a preview. >> to encourage enlistment, lincoln hit upon an ingenious organizing device that his confederate counterpart, jefferson davis, did not adopt and that is giving important military commissions to foreign-born officers who would

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Kazakhstan , Alabama , United States , Mongolia , Paris , France General , France , Turkey , China , Syria , Aleppo , Lab , Russia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , India , Iowa , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Canada , Germany , Damascus , Dimashq , North Carolina , Texas , Iran , Washington , Kremlin , Taiwan , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Denver , Colorado , Iraq , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Saudi Arabia , Bulgaria , Prague , Praha , Hlavníesto , Czech Republic , Ohio , Berlin , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , Bulgarian , New Yorker , Britain , Soviet , Syrian , Israeli , Palestinian , Russians , American , Taiwanese , Lewis Sinclair , Roy Cohen , Douglas Macarthur , Billy Bush , Henry Kissinger , Nancy Pelosi , Ronald Reagan , Vladimir Putin , Michael Bloomberg , Brian Stephenson , Margaret Omara , Harry Truman , John Gotti , Ella Baker , Jefferson Davis , Anand Yang , Rex Tillerson , James Grossman , Sean Wilentz , James Bryce , Frank Gassman , John Mccain , Philip Roth , Chuck Schumer , Tony Kushner , Dwight Eisenhower , Woodrow Wilson , Andrew Jackson , Ken Pomeranz , Roy Cohn , Michael Flynn , Bashar Al Assad , Richard Hofstadter , Stan Greenberg , Abraham Lincoln , Tom Wolfe , Barack Obama , Dwight D Eisenhower , Lindsey Graham , George Patton , Harold Holzer , Bob Dylan , Mitch Mcconnell , Richard Nixon , Hillary Clinton , Khalil Gibran Muhammad , James Mattis , Franklin Roosevelt ,