Nationalism Returns to America (3311)

Just another WordPress site

Nationalism Returns to America (3311)

Usually it works Okay good Morning This is Nationalism Returns to America I’m Alan Rudy moderator Wednesday April 12, session 3311 We will be over at 12:20 May run over a little bit, because I don’t think there’s another session planned for this room immediately A couple of business things Would everyone who has downloaded the app raise your hand? Wow, good For those who haven’t, the app will add value to your conference experience It’s really pretty wonderful, and it’s really pretty easy to download Go to your app store, put in Conference on World Affairs And then let it come down and follow directions It will enable you to ask questions quickly As a matter of fact questions can be submitted one hour before the sessions starts? You can grade the session on the app And it makes things work a whole let better for you And then I have, before we really get started, I want to talk about the fact that everybody in here knows that the Conference on World Affairs is free and open to the public But it’s not cost free It costs in excess of $600,000 To produce the 200 plus session Transport participant, print programs and pay the staff that puts this all together You also know I’m sure that the conference is a joint venture between the city, between us the community,

and the university That means that if we really enjoy this and fell its important and want to see it continue and prosper we really need to contribute to its support We get about 70,000 bucks in seats over the course of the conference for the whole week If you could allocate out of your annual giving Just a little bit A dollar, $2, $3 a session Well three times 70,000 adds up pretty quick, goes a long way and it would make us an additional part of the conference We would have ownership in a way that we don’t have now You can do that You can make your contribution by using the app, by going onto the website, or that you can pick up an envelope on your way out of the hall Is there? Where is? Delmar where are you? I don’t see him right now but there will be somebody that the door to assist you Now questions, for those of you who have been to sessions before this would know Questions can be submitted on the app Or should you not have the app, cards will be distributed If you raise you hand you’ll get a card you can send it up here And we will take your questions I see microphones over here, they will not be used for questions Okay And by the way, I’ve been moderating panels here for about 15 years And I’ve never moderated or attended a panel with more qualified panelists to address a subject than the one we have today I’m really looking forward to it Our panelists are We’ll do it this way Sitting to my right is Dr. Steve Vertovec Vertovec Excuse me it’s Steven Vertovec He’s a C.U. alum He has fellowships at six universities has consulted to nine agencies, and he fulfills those obligations to universities and agencies by sharing his expertise in the field of religious and ethnic diversity Ethnic diasporas international migration and transnational anthropology If we had written a job description for somebody for this panel he would be way up on the list Next to him is Mike Franc Mike has been coming, how many years have you been here? Whoa 14 years He served at a very senior level of Republican strategy thought and political support His task today is to clarify us today’s Republican platform and it’s implications for our new sense of nationalism Maurizio Geri By the way, for those who may have looked him up on Google, I don’t think he’s the Maurizio Geri who performs music inspired by alsatian Gypsy tradition Are you? There is another one Ours is the one with expertise in democracy, human relations and conflict resolutions in Latin America, Middle East, and Southeastern Asia He can provide us with a comparison of America’s current form of nationalism and that of countries that are the center of his professional experience AS you probably know, each speaker will talk for 10 minutes, and then we’ll have him talk to each other for a couple free minutes and then we’ll as questions Steve do you want to go first? Good morning, this is going to be difficult cause I talk with my hands Maybe not as much as Maurizio, but I’ll give it a go So good morning, thanks for being here on a beautiful day, its hard to be inside, but hopefully we’ll give you much to think about I’m going first in this panel because I’m going to take the broadest brush approach I’m going to take a global comparative perspective on this questions of nationalism returning to America And let me just first say something about

where I’m coming from literally and figuratively Because that informs what I’m going to be talk about and say So I grew up in Chicago and came to C.U. as a student I’ve probably got my alumnus ribbon But really over the past 35 years, I’ve lived in Europe So I’m an expat American looking back on developments over the years in my country So I think that’s an important thing to say first I’m viewing developments from a far Another thing is that of those 35 years I’ve spent outside of the U.S., 25 years of those where in the United Kingdom I was a professor at Oxford for a number of years and so forth And during that time, I took out British citizenship Okay, it seemed like a good idea at the time It wasn’t because I particularly wanted to swear allegiance to the Queen or something I had to do that, it kind of stuck in my throat, but it was mainly because I was sick of standing in line at Heathrow every time I ended in and out But also for things like work permit and taxes and so forth It was a thing to do So the upshot of that was last year, I voted in the Brexit Referendum And then shortly after that I also voted in the American presidential election And yeah I got burned twice badly It was a real kind of one-two punch So that informs some of my views Now I live in Germany I also vote there, but just in local elections but maybe that’s how much I love democracy Is I vote wherever I go But there I run quite a large research institute over 100 people looking globally and comparatively at issues of diversity, nationalism, immigration and so forth So both in this professional and kind of personalized sense I’ve come to the sort of issues that I want to talk about And so first with this is kind of global perspective I think it’s quite clear for people who pay attention international news and so forth that over the past 10 years or so we’ve seen a global rise in various kinds of nationalism India, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, England, France, we see a lot of nationalism being presented to us And the thing that I want to kind of focus on in my brief comments is first is what those things have in common, the types of discourse or rhetoric in these different global nationalisma And one thing they all have in common is each nationalist leader lays claim to the people And of course how they’re defining the people, in each case is we could say just a segment of the population That they are addressing as the people that they represent So in France, we’ve got Marine Le Pen right now, her you know she’s running for the presidency Her slogan is “Au nom du peuple”, in the name of the people But if you look at all of her discourse it’s about French Catholics And by way of talking about French Muslims she doesn’t address them as co-citizens, she addresses them as an occupying force In Turkey, which Maurizio knows a lot more about Tayyip Erdoğan following the coup ushered in a state of emergency in the name of the people And those people were of course his supporters And this ushering in the state of emergency in the name of the people has of course allowed him to seize more and more power In the U.K., Nigel Farage the day after the Brexit vote, claimed that this was a victory for real people And remember that the Brexit vote was 52% in favor, so if those are real people What are the 48%? Likewise this is kind of rhetoric of addressing the people in exclusive of his terms The Daily Mail which is kind of a unabashedly right-wing national news paper in the U.K., the day after the High Court in the U.K basically said that parliament has to discuss Brexit It wasn’t say we’re not going to do Brexit

the High Court just says that parliament has to discuss it first before Article 50 can be triggered The Daily Mail on the day after had pictures of three High Court judges, and it said “Enemies of the People” So we see the same sort of thing picked up by Donald Trump, who in February 17 in his Twitter called the national new media in the U.S. “Enemies of the American people” I’m thinking Well aren’t the American media American people too? But, you’re getting my point Exclusiness takes on saying they represent the people On May 16, Donald Trump said, “The only real think is the unification of the people, “because the other people don’t mean anything” And finally example at his inauguration he said, “January 20, 2017 will be remember as the day the people “became the rulers of this nation again” And again a large part of the population are they the same people that he’s talking about? I don’t know So in each case you see what I mean, the people in certain kinds of nationalism laying claim to the people at a very exclusive segment of the people and claiming that those are the only people that matter Now I think it’s important to emphasize that in this kind of global comparison, I certainly don’t want to claim that all of these nationalisms are same thing or the same trend or the same cause I mean quite clearly from India to Turkey, to Russia, to China, to the U.S we have very different conditions Very different causes for political change Very different agendas And of course very different political systems in which these discourses are working So you know, Marine Le Pen is not the French Trump Even though people lay that claim Donald Trump is not the American Erdogan And Nigel Farage, for me, isn’t anything really but It’s different But what is in common, I would suggest and we can debate this point that not only in these nationalists claims to represent effectively a segment of the population, in the same discourse they are actually creating a hierarchy of peoples and population segments and saying that this group that I’m claiming as the people that I represent are Farage and other people have said, more real than the other people And I think that is of course a very dangerous thing for democracy I think democracy, I’m not a political scientist, I hope I know enough about democracy Democracy requires pluralism and a horizontal pluralism not a vertical one Not a hierarchical one So you know, for me in my closing words is I have nothing against nationalism if its equated with a patriotism of course you want the best for your country and so forth But it has to be based on a pluralist’s notion of the people And not segmented hierarchical one And if there is someone who really advocates a pluralist nationalism, I can get behind that whether I’m voting in the U.K. or the U.S.A Thank a lot [applauding crowd] Good afternoon, good morning, it’s still morning I’m going to look at it, the nationalism question I’m a little more focused on the U.S And maybe U.S. foreign policy Are kind of where I have a more of a comfort zone And in trying to understand the Trump election one thing that I’ve been struck by is how a number of really smart commentators had predicted it There’s a book called the Hillbilly Elegy, by J.D. Vance There’s a book before that called Coming Apart by Charles Murray came out I think in 2011 And a more recent book by Robert Putnam who had previously wrote Bowling Alone He wrote a book called Our Kids And in each of these books in different ways, with different methodologies and styles they were getting at the sense that there’s a large group of Americans out there who are,

who are struggling in some really fundamental ways And who are not really being seen by the political elites I think they felt across the board, and these are largely going to be people in middle sized cities, small towns, a lot of rural obviously rural areas Who feel as if things aren’t working well and you can site a lot of those statistics You know labor force, participation rates have come down something like six points since the time before the rescission The number of 18 to 34 year olds living with mom and dad has jumped up something like four or five percentage points in the last six, seven years There’s a number of metrics that should have recovered a lot upon the end of the recession that was somewhere of June of 09 forward And they haven’t not only not recovered, but they’ve gotten worse in some incidences So you look at incomes have stagnated for close to 20 years Student debt, it’s harder to get the first job, plus you have to carry this debt load, consistently for the last seven, eight years, 65% of American were at large and I’d suggest a much higher percentage of this group has said when asked that America is going in the wrong direction So it just goes on and on Five million fewer manufacturing jobs, the kind of jobs you can do well in without a college degree for the most part Five million fewer of those since 2000 So you add that all up, to me what that translated into is a growing sense of almost in an odd way solidarity among these individuals these Americans And they almost without doing so they’ve created their own identity group A lot of identity groups in politics historically in my time Republican politicians have been allergic to try to play the identity politics card They just don’t like it They don’t want to play race cards or gender cards and all that And they shy away from it, I think politically to their detriment in many cases But what I think what happened on election day is summed up with one to me very remarkable statistic which is that Donald Trump won 69% of non-college educated whites That’s a, not quite where Democrats are with Hispanics, or Asians, it’s still way below where they are with African Americans But that’s a lot higher than it had been And it’s 10 or 12 points so higher than I than it had been In certain regions it’d be even higher than that So you’re talking about a very large segment of the American population who have somehow rather found each other and start to see each other as sharing something, mostly negative in common And saying we have to start behaving in a cohesive political manner With that elitism populism divide can be summed up by something that I don’t think got enough attention, but it’s still remarkable when you look back at it When the footage and recording of Secretary Clinton talking about the basket of deplorables She talked about a lot of people A lot of fellow Americans and that’s pretty strong language If you think about it If anyone had tried to say that another group of Americans was a basket of deplorables, I think there would have been a different explosive reaction in the media and elsewhere But that was heard That was heard around the country in these communities And I think a rallying cry I mean there were actual basket of deplorable inaugural balls in Washington in January So I think that reflected the disdain that some folks had toward these categories of voters And not thinking there’d would be any kind of political reaction to it So just bare all that in mind And I think that’s ironically Bill Clinton understood well He came out of that background if you think about it He was someone whose upbringing in the community in which he grew up in Arkansas really fits the profile of Trump voters And apparently even though he made some comments about it and was making some suggestions towards the end of the campaign He was not listened to because the metric people were plugging numbers coming up with different solutions So that to me is where Trump comes from And the other thing I’ll mention is there was a book

I read after about five people Walter Russell Mead wrote a book in 2001 called Special Providence by American Foreign Policy Traditions And he identified four Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian And his point in a way was over U.S. history usually there’s one dominant of those four that is dominant in any given time But there’s always a second one that kind of coming up and rounding it out So Jacksonian were I think were I think we all say and would understand especially ’cause he put Jackson’s portrait in the Oval Office is Trump tradition And what that essentially comes down to is a sense of strong sense of honor Wanting to have a very robust and strong military And if anyone threatens the interest of the United States you’d use the military, but you don’t use it You don’t go out seeking situations You don’t have an evangelical view of the exceptionalism of America that you’re trying impart upon the rest of the world In both and the Wilsonian tradition really is that Most strongly Hamiltonian is more using commerce to spread American commercial values and by definition more than that over and the Jeffersonian one is more pacifists in general So depending on the presidency you get mostly those two of those four That Jacksonian approach does comport very easily with a form of nationalism And think that comes out I guess its the alt-right world For someone who has been in conservative circles in D.C for 35 years, I didn’t hear about alt-right until well into the election I had not paid attention to the websites I didn’t realize that a whole new tradition that had cropped up under my nose I’m in think tanks, I’m going to panels, I’m reading books You’d think I’d find out about this stuff, right? But I hadn’t But you have Breitbart and some other organs like that which Steve Bannon is the embodiment I guess these days Who reflects that And that really is a to me a more narrow focus America first we’re not going to worry about solving anyone else’s problems We’re not going to inject ourselves into anyone else’s fights We’re going to withdraw from the world We’re going to be very suspicious of trading relationships We’re going to be suspicious of interactions with the rest of the world Now you see that in various forms Now the interesting caveat to that I think is what happened in the past week or so With the tomahawk missiles going in to that camp, that base in Syria Is Donald Trump over time going to start think about the projection of force in a different way? Pending, the developments whether its the Middle East or in China, North Korea or elsewhere You could probably argue that the way they handled that strike was Jacksonian In other words, it was very limited They kept the runways in place They avoided the Russian personnel who were there And it was more to send a message that you can’t use chemical weapons in this world That’s a redline that we will enforce And we’ll enforce it as we need to But we’re not going to use that as an opportunity to go beyond that and try to accomplish additional military outcome You could also argue that this was a use of force that had gotten quite a bit of approval from places that have been disapproving of things he did and that maybe that’s smelling good, tasting good, let’s try it again and it can be a lesson going forward Who knows? But events on the ground tend to shape how presidents behave in their conception of the U.S. role in the world and it may cause them to move in any one of those four traditions I think I’ll stop there I’ll just mention last the last thing One of the manifests of the earlier stuff I talked about I would really suggest you look at The economist who won the Nobel at Princeton, Angus Deaton and his wife Anne Casee A couple of years ago wrote a very important study looking at morbidity in different demographic breakouts And he found I think it was whites between 45 and 54 had actually, since 1998, between 1998 and 2013 had suffered had gone in the wrong direction on mortality And his three or four main reasons it was suicide, opioid poisoning, liver poisoning, that kind of stuff And since then it’s been described as the deaths of despair

And they’re concentrated in a lot of these communities I talked about earlier If you read Hillbilly Elegy, you see it come through in a very sad but vivid way And that tends to be the manifestation of this And the funny thing of this is the folks who get in that situation often times rhetorically are the most self reliant we don’t want to get anything from the government, yet they end up needing government when life, when they o.d And they have to hit the E.R and they have to go to rehab and so on They’re a really tough dynamic to unpackage I’ll stop there and look forward to your questions [applauding audience] Thank you Steven and Michael very good points As Steven anticipated I will have problems with this hand and the microphone cause I will use a lot of hands Thanks its okay So, before this panel I was on another panel called Brexit So more than return American nationalism is pattern to the world The European Union to the world in general My point, the central point of my argument is this Nothing is eternal And that nationalism is coming back because there is the erosion of nation state So I come from Florence in Italy And for thousands of years city states fought against each other After that we started to integrate On a higher level of serenity And today, similarly to that time We are integrating in the globalization with the economy.’ In the politics we have international institutions and in our identity Because the reaction of Brexit, American exceptionalism, American first, is not only economic issues, Is not only a social issues because of migration Is not only political issue because of international institutions Is also an identity issue Who I am? You know I am from Florence I come consider myself Florentine Then I consider myself from Tuscany Then from Italy, then from Europe And then from the plane Earth Because the other day, they said we are going to Mars and we cannot go to Mars unless we go as a specie Unless we go collaborating each other right So these demigods, these populists they are appealing to new, to the returning of the old identities These happened also between the First and Second World Wars When the empire ended, the nation states started to recuperate strength and they said now we’re going to be a new type of identity But the nation state had started in 1648 After 30 years of was, the Thirty Years War So today we are in the process of which without wars with sovereign nation states like in European Union With international institutions like International Criminal Court the United States entered and then they went out because I am exceptional because I am over the top And U.K. the same I want to be exceptional There is a reaction of nation states to the natural integration of the world through politics, economy, and societies So how we deal with that I want to bring you the identity of countries that are built geographically in a different ways There are archipelago of countries like Indonesia, that I studied in cooperation with Turkey and the treatment effecting minorities Two days ago we did a panel on that They have 17,000 islands There is Philippines also It is an archipelago Sukarno is the founder of Indonesia He said, “I am a nationalist, “but I am from the nationalists of Ghandi “Human kind is my nation.” So this pluralistic nationalism that Steven was talking about earlier, I call it inclusive nationalism is not incompatible with internationalism You can be as you said, patriotic and you can be international But how can you be inclusive in this patriotism? Assimilation and multiculturalism they two model of European societies One in France and more in Germany, U.K. both failed Because the people that arrived they don’t feel integrated Once side they feel excluded In their identity In their assimilation you become French, but you cannot have your own style of food for example in the public school Because the law is the same for everyone If you want to eat hallah you cannot If you want to pray sometime you cannot Also multiculturalism failed Because you maintain your identity, but you separate each other So now we have this kind of sometimes radicalization People feel angry There is the age of anger Pankaj Mishra a very good book

He’s talking about how we’re forgetting about the emotions of the people that when the globalization arrived, change your attitude to your traditional values You had to be now competitive But what kind of competition you have? If you have so much inequality You know that eight people have the majority of the money the world And this gap is going to increase more and more So there is again, you said American first True what does it mean American first? Who, which America? Because the WASPs we know, but then there is, in 20 years the white will not be the majority here The white people This is a threat to logical security of the traditional Jacksonian Americans I studied also Jacksonian values If Latinos, Blacks, Asians will be more than the Whites, I have to expand my identity towards an inclusive nationalism Which is my nation? My nation has to become sooner or late the human nation So, we need today, to learn from other countries Another point I want to make is For example I am here paying taxes too But these taxes doesn’t go to the pension to to the health insurance This creates to some, temporary people, the immigrants that are considered illegal status The fear of saying okay if I integrate what will be my mission? What I will belong in to? You spoke about social capital right? Social capital they divide in two side One is the bridging social capital The bridging among communities Like Obama was trying to do Not only inside the United States, but among communities around the world The other is the bonding social capital Let’s close the ranks among our communities Mine, my family, my ethnic group, my religion But they are other histories around the world that we can learn from I spoke about Indonesia I can can speak about Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Empire they had for a long time the millet system Millet in Arabic means nation The nations at that time were not ethnic groups They were their religions New different identities they had Then we arrive as European Union and we impose a mono ethic nation state They divide and conquer That is not adapt to their culture And today we have a lot of cultures Today since 100 years Not only because of the economics reasons, oil, anartic system, international system But there is an identity issues That we have to face today So my point is nothing is eternal, the nation state is going to change Even with the Brexit it has to accept some sovereign to give back some sovereignty to super national or even local soveriengty because the cities are more and more important They climate change is bringing the sea level rise There are many season around the world that are becoming mega cities Urban cities, gigantic, 30, 40 million people We cannot deal, NATO, UN, even the nation state is fragile and failing state cannot deal Unless you have the local administration that is empowering itself in a new identity Means I belong to Karachi okay I want to care about Karachi too as a city What does it mean to be a city in this city? Can I create some civil societies organizations like Putnam said about Italy That care about my city And I compare my city with another city in Japan With not [mumble] that we have many problems because of the sea level rise And let’s exchange best practices So there are layers of identities Layers of sovereignty In both identity sovereignty has to deal with the future globalization, natural mass movements, and integration economically or politically So let’s not be afraid to have a local identity but let’s not be afraid also to a more open and inclusive and expanded identity [applauding crowd] The panelist will visit with each other for another couple of minutes a piece It occurred to me listening to you particularly you two guys Are you conflating populism with nationalism a little bit too? I wouldn’t say it’s a conflation There are certain forms of nationalism that rely on populism Not all forms And this is one of the points I wanted to get to as well You know, I was perfectly with everything

Michael was saying, and Maurizio as well But as it were, if this is a useful distinction There is nationalism in foreign policy and economics So America’s place in the world it’s relationship with partners with potential enemies or things in between And yeah, the history of politics is an ebb and flow as parties and president change between more internationalists more isolationists No ones gone totally isolationists, but I think that’s been the case and that I think was part of your point I was also talking about nationalism within a country within a nation state By way of discourses And that’s where the populism comes in And that’s why I’m saying a lot of these forms of nationalism we’re seeing there are also forms of foreign policy and economic nationalism that all these other countries are doing But there is also the nationalism in political rhetoric which I was trying to point out is selected And its hugely important what Michael raised about 69% of non-college educated whites Economic despair of a lot of this population segments Poor health, rising mortality, this is a a hugely important segment and whether it becomes an identity group or not Might rely on certain discourses But certain and I think without a question that the Democrats didn’t do a good job in addressing this population segment But then what I’m questioning is turning around and saying, this population segment which largely voted for the president, becomes the prioritized group Becomes the only real group Or if I can sort of paraphrase George Orwell and Animal Farm Some people are more the people than others Is this kind of logic And that’s simply what I’m questioning Now it becomes interesting, how do those internal political discourse nationalisms, populist, discourses, relate to the foreign policies and the economic ones And that’s outside of my zone But I don’t know Michael if you’ve got thoughts on that? I think the overlap between nationalism and the populism has to do with the very concentrated and consistent views of what we might be called the elites When it came, comes to economics and foreign policy That to this group didn’t seem to be working out very And they didn’t, if you may have noticed, the last 15, 20, 25 years, trust in different institutions in America continues to drop It’s hit lows in many, many of this categories, such as whether it’s Wall Street, banks, insurance companies, Whether its different parts of government, Congress, presidency and so on Whether it’s the media, different categories of the media, really has diminished so there is a lot of these discussions take place With the back drop that those hearing it and this extends beyond the Trump type voter They are not trusting the source That they’re immediately questioning the veracity of what they are hearing And so you have factor that into how it plays out And I think you know I used a deplorable comment because I think that embodied a broader kind of sent of disdain and the kind of easy way you can make jokes about fly over America and some of the favorite cultural habits of folks who might vote for Trump, whether it’s country music or certain kinds of reality TV shows, or whatever There’s a sense that, wow we’re superior And that’s how it comes across And that gets into pop, that causes a populist reaction to that those perceived slights And the nationalism front it’s I think a sense that America is being taken advantage of just the way they are And their communities suffering is the manifestation of America being taken advantage of and trade agreements or in other kinds of alliances and interactions with other nations around the world And I think it’s an easy thing, line to cross intellectually If you’re in the middle of it Yes populism is probably

the most pushing element of nationalism But from where is coming populism? Here and also Europe First of all it comes from the party crisis For 100 years we had mass parties That represented the interest of the people Then they become to start to become corrupted in Europe, but also here Here you have the public funding to cap it when you want the private funds You have to choose I think both Obama, and Trump and everyone in the last three or four elections that choose the private funds Yes McCain took the public I was working in the Carter Center, we were comparing the Latin American countries and the passage from public to private fund was creating a lot of corruption so our solution was to think about both and private A little bit of public obviously controlled otherwise if you’re public funds like in Italy it becomes only public it comes a disaster if you don’t hae it under control But this type of reforms to improve the party system to make it the anti-establishment reduced because the people would feel more that not only who has the money can influence the government I with the Civil Society Organization can influence the government We have the Five Movement in Italy coming from the Civil Society Organizations Why? Because they said enough with these parties But if you throw the baby with the bath water the parties are very important you cannon throw them otherwise we go towards the strong man We go again to authoritarianism But the parties have to be reformed And the other thing is the polarization In the past to be a dissenter was very good we had the Christian Democrat in Italy for 50 years They obtained stability but the problem is that the government didn’t last more than on year Because they power sharing and the composition of democracy of parties together was weakening the government Because every time there more party go away, you had to back to elections But the polarizations is neither very good And this we go to the social media and to the technology revolution the filter bubble, the multiplication effect The polarization polarized democracies they created the narrative of us versus them You know Here the party the Republican has the Tea Party going to the extreme And the other party also going to extreme This is not very good for democracy and for nationalism Because a it’s creating, I am more nationalist than you So party crisis and polarization are the elements that create populism Populism is strong today because another problem is the leaders Leaders today don’t lead masses, they reflect them I write in my blog sometimes these articles about the leaders in the European Union Many times, instead of inspiring, instead of giving charismatic pathos You know Aristotle talk about logos To convince the masses That the language Then you have the pathos that is the moral values, the rules But then you also need the pathos These leaders they are not able to have long visionary policies Imagination for the future And this is another problem So many times they reflect the masses We are going lower level with the leaders They are very ignorant many times Look at Berlusconi We anticipated Trump for 20 years And this is another problem that creating more and more the idea of I represent the masses, but in reality I’m not representing the masses, I’m representing some interest, specific interest, and manipulated the discourse to convince the masses to vote me while in reality asking to vote for my people my groups and not in reality for the masses Okay we’re going to do questions Students have preference Students when you are responding using the app Put the word student at the beginning so we’ll be able to recognize you Those who do how not have the app can do cards Demar are you around? I can’t Is there someone handing out cards? Can you see him? Right there Absent the cards, if the mics are on we will use them We’ll give preference to students So students you can line up first We have a couple of questions that are already in And from a student Do you believe that the more recent divisions and factions forming within the Republican Party is a result of this return of nationalism?

Or is it simply the result of increased polarization? I guess that’s my question right? I think that the divisions you see are a function of increasing almost universal frustration on the side of Republicans that the things our government does have not been working out very well and we need to try something different In some cases its sending it down to the states In other cases it’s just stopping the activity In other cases its reforming it And that there’s all these veto points in the legislative process that prevent these reform ideas form every getting beyond the first or second stage of the legislative dance And what you’re seeing is not so much I’ll caveat this in a second No so much about a difference over substance and desired outcome Its a tactical difference so that the Freedom Caucus in the house has a whole different way of wanting to engage But there are some places where there’s a substance of difference emerging and this is where that alt-right dynamic comes in So that I think on immigration for example, you can be a 100% enthusiastic about immigration at current levels but be frustrated by wholesale, ignoring of the law And that there’s a problem with that And there is a rule of law element to how you want to handle immigration reform But there’s an emerging group that just thinks there’s too many immigrants coming in period So if we brought in a 1,050,000 in 2015 that’s several hundred thousands too high And that we need It’s a broader and different kind of concern And that really splits Republicans If you want to see Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, members like that Senators like that like Toomey and others Get frustrated It’s when that divide comes up They want to reform the system, they don’t want to reduce flow in any measurable amount So yeah there’s some dynamic like that But for the most part, on day to day basis, it’s you know do you try to get everything you want to get in one fell swoop Or do you take a gradual a more incremental approach to policy making I’m on thin ice here because I don’t know much the Republican Party especially as an expat looking back, but I man just one thought that occurs though in response to the question, is the question is of course divisions within the Republican Party certainly predate Trump and the previous election The Tea Party came along some time ago Even during the era of Cheney, Rumsfeld, I know there was quite a bit of division on the right things to do an so forth I would think that normally or lets say in normal times That’s always a good thing within a party to have real rebates And you know amongst the Democrats are certainly real debates Obviously a lot of post mortem going on What went wrong But about the right ways forward and so forth So I think there are longer term trends and I really don’t know and again I would have to deffer to Mike on this Is there something from those longer term trends? Tea Party etcetera That have morphed to other things But I just have to say that I got an older brother who’s a long term Republican and he was basically telling me that he doesn’t recognize his Republican Party anymore And I think that’s an issue for a lot I mean you probably come across that all the time Again I think the polarization is created also by the fact that the filter bubble of the information So we read my newspaper Only my social media The public sphere that other man spoke about it was abut the space where we can compare our vision and we can create agreements So reduce the polarization But the public sphere is more or more or less today also because of the post part, post truth Everyone instead of basing on facts can express an opinion And then that opinion tends to be extreme Because it has to be different from the other side So I think Machiavelli he wrote the book The Prince

Not to support authoritarianism but to show how authoritarianism can be born And it can be born besides the inequality from the extreme partisanship And extreme partisanship is not good for democracy Here you have the two party system And two party system is good because the alternative to democracy is good Alternatives among power But it’s also good to have extra parties that motivate the space And recreate the public sphere for moderation and democracy also reduction of these alternative tendencies You can actually argue on that point that Freedom Caucus in the House is essentially its own party They’re very independent of the House leadership and the party leadership Many of them got elected by circumventing the normal routes to power They circumvented county parties They circumvented the donor class that had been in place in certain communities for a long time on the Republican side And they emerged one day with a website and a lot of small donors and attention on some websites that a lot of people in the district read and they become a viable political force without ever having played the game And so they feel as if the establishment Capital E is their enemy Whether its the Republican one, or a Democratic one or a media one or fill in the blank So that’s one point The other point that I just would raise is I think you see divisions in the parties when they’re actually in control and they have to deliver on something in the eyes of their base So there was a reason why the Affordable Care Act in the Senate was finalized at Harry Reid’s office on Christmas Eve 2009 That wasn’t the plan Okay, it was because there was factions and there were debates and the were member holding out You know, Nebraska needed something and Louisiana needed a fix, and Memphis, Tennessee needed a hospital fix and all these things were being negotiated out toward the end of the final days It was very raucous and in the House, the Bart Stupak and Pro-Life Democrats were demanding certain assurances that they wanted in the bill relating to abortion So that was a function of them being in control of the whole process Republicans were most united when they had someone like Obama in the White House cause you know what you were against You first three paragraphs of your press release could be uniform across the whole party The problem and the tension and the raucousness arises when you’re now saying, okay now what And that’s what you saw recently on the health care front It’s always been a dirty little secret that on the right the conservative health care experts have never quite agreed about what the final solution should look like for markets versus tax credits versus tax deductions versus health care savings accounts and all that They always disagreed about that They agreed on what they didn’t like And now you’re seeing it come out of full flower And it looks really really bad But it’s always kind of been there lurking underneath, but you never needed to really address it This is from a student Can nationalism in the United States truly be nationalism because the United States is so diverse and doesn’t share our common ethnicity language or culture Is it not more patriotism? I’ll take a stab at that You know the typical academic thing it’s down to definition depends what you mean All that sort of stuff Because there’s a lot of thinking around etno-nationalism Which is exactly what the student is inferring from nationalism But there are other forms of nationalism which are based on things like constitutions, common histories, and heritage and so forth I wouldn’t want to say that nationalism is always ethno-nationalism And again I think we’re talking about at different levels sort of what we were starting off with I was talking about kind of internal definitions of who the people are and what is national populist As opposed to the place of the nation in the world system in the world economy and so forth Those are also different And sometimes ethno-nationalisms are involved in that game as well I think what I’m calling for by way of this kind of pluralist nationalism is in the face of or against

ideas of single ethno-nationalism For instance, Turkey Erdogan is particularly a ethno-nationalism But the nationalism of Modi is a religious nationalism So again, typical academic, it depends what you mean and so forth Just let me add I think The people I talked about earlier, the conservatives who like to embrace immigration, would be the first ones to say that the premise of that to make it work Requires a certain level of assimilation into the core values I forget who it was who said that the biggest factor about America is that America was founded on a creed Which means that you can join it, you can become a member no matter what your ethnicity, and no matter what your origins no matter where you coming from if you say, I believe in the is stuff and I want to become an American and being an American means something different than being a German or a Brit, or someone from France or whatever right It’s hard to imagine me going to some other many other countries And suddenly being over time accepted as card carrying Egyptian Right? There’s a different notion of that And I think that in America that’s the point that is at issue right now And what is it mean to be an American And there are some people who want to build, create all these different walls between ethnic and religious and racial groups that is an anathema to a lot of us who think, well let’s find out what we all, what the core founding principles of the country are and ask the people who are coming in Buy into this and it may manifest itself politically in all kinds of different ways But if you’re buying into the core principles you’re an American And then we can have our fun debates and discussions on panels And over dinner tales and all that kind of thing I think here the motto which you know is “e pluribus unum” from anyone The motto in Europe is “Unité dans la diversité.” again Latin which means untied in diversity So before I am Italian, my ethnicity, my nation and then I’m European Here before you’re American, the creed, the idea you see if you are different ethnicity et cetera So in this case I think it’s like a state in cental Venetian Like France was like that Italy, Germany, Turkey are nations in search of a state We come with state after having our history of nation And when you have this name for example, Italians, Italy, Turkish, Turkey, We tended to have these extra internationalism Extra democracies we can define sometimes And this can be more dangerous Because it’s again quite exclusive Instead of here it should be more inclusive but elites can use the narrative of division for their own power So we have to study how institutions and elites that are in power inside the institutions can create the divide and conquer Divide and rule How do you say? Yes, dīvide et īmpera Yes divide and conquer for the political or economic power Follow up to personal example if you’ll give that again Like I said I’ve got a U.K. citizenship and American citizenship And I feel okay taking up that U.K. citizenship because I participate in the politics, I buy into the parliamentary democracy I pay my taxes and so forth I’d never call myself British I would just sound stupid with my Chicago accent and so forth And there are certainly a lot of English nationalists who would even contest me taking out U.K. citizenship But I think that’s in line with what’s being said though, that the people who come and by into the system you can be part of the nation, but not part of a presumed entho-nation A widely simplistic response to that would be that there are hugely diverse people who gathered together to route of the same football team This is an interesting one, do you believe that nationalism paves the way to fascism? Or what is the interrelationship between fascism and nationalism? It doesn’t have to but I think there’s a lot of instances in history where it has I mean look at the way ethno-nationalist I guess is a term I am learning here today

Thank you very much Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Putin’s doing it now You identify an ethnic cluster of people whether they’re Russian, German or whatever and they’re living outside your borders that become our defacto excuse to protect their interest because the ethnic similarities Trump so to speak being in different countries And that you have an interest as a Russian in Moscow to help the Russians in Ukraine or the Russians in Crimea so therefore that legitimizes an excursion and incursion and invasion in to that area But it think the remedy for that is not to It’s to resist the temptation to see nationalism and ethnic lineage as being indelible and the same I think that’s the beauty of the American experiment is that it’s okay to be an American from any conceivable starting point I’m actually at the point where I’m surprised sometimes when I meet somebody and they have a quote unquote, an American accent It’s remarkable at least in cities like New York or D.C Where I spend most of my time And I never quite think about that as being well you can’t be an American Well this seems to be absolutely automatic to me but Yes Plato in Greek times he said that, after democracy we have oligarchy After oligarchy we have democracy and after democracy we go back to tyranny Because democracy create a lot of divisions sometimes you have to change constantly you know he had in globalized times to have a democracy is a problem Because you have to go to the parliament and for permission to do policies That’s why many democracies and crisis are going towards authoritarianism today But it’s not a direct correlation as you earlier Mike Because can facilitate authoritarianism, or fascism, nationalism But it is not necessary actions because we need anyways strong policies, fast policies in globalized times And sometimes you need a strong executive power That’s why in Italy we did a referendum to cut one of the two chambers We failed because the people felt, okay we are risking to go back to Mussolini So how we pass the understanding that we need a strong governments, but with the checks and balances that you have here I think is one of the few presidential systems that didn’t have coups, military coups because of how well you’re organized So the presidential system they want to bring in Turkey is dangerous for that because in cases where you don’t have clear checks and balances Too much strong nationalists and executive power can go towards authoritarianism or fascism But here, I don’t think it is a problem If I could just try to put it in a mini formula or something I would say that most forms of fascism that we know as you were saying rely on a particular ethno-nationalism I think we’re all saying nationalism needn’t be ethno-nationalism And even ethno-nationalism needn’t end of as fascism There are plenty across Europe There are pletny of ethno-nationalism parties Danish Peoples Party the Finish True Fins and all these But I wouldn’t say they are necessarily fascist in their political agenda But they are ethno-nationalist in their political agenda Question for Mike Mike, it’s fine to insist that immigrants buy into our core values, but doesn’t that presuppose that we as a nation will respect those core values with respect to our immigrants? Our immigrants It’s fine to insist that immigrants buy into our core values, but doesn’t that presuppose that we as a nation will respect those core values with respect to our immigrants? Well maybe to paraphrase Bill Clinton it all depends how you define core values What I think they’re getting at is you know maybe different traditions and immigrant group would adhere to But if an immigrant group comes in and wants to behave in a way that is very, very challenging to our notion of equality under the law Is that a problem for us? Do we want a? In Europe some communities have been no go zones Where certain standards whether its family structure behavior toward the way to enforce family strictures and so on can violate all the criminal codes in that country, but if you really want to go in and cause a raucous

Those no go zones have been documented a lot in different publications That’s the notion here If America believes in as part of our core principles is that equality under the law and consent of the govern and so on I think those are the things I’m talking about I’m not talking about the style of maybe a preference for educational structure or certain voting preference for a type of government program Or the derivative that things that come from trying to apply those values in everyday life That’s much different thing And you do want to respect that But you want everyone to play by the same rules That’s what I’m getting at Yeah I think that’s an interesting question and if I recall it and get the gist of it right I would completely agree with it i.e. agree with it i.e. you know it’s expected that immigrants come in and adopt core values, fairness, equality, anti discrimination all these sorts of things And then shouldn’t they expect that they are treated with the same core values And as we know that often doesn’t happen and that’s the difference between core values as principles and core value as practices And so I think that’s why I think it’s important to have a public sphere and the media and NGO’s and so forth To call out and remind us Anytime that we are not acting in accordance with core values that yes indeed we are asking others to adopt as they come I agree and there is [mumble] in Canada He is speaking about cultural rights and common rights This common rights they are not necessarily incompatible with individual rights So we can obviously respect the law of the nation, of the state, but to give possibility to different traditions You know creatively we can create a new type of norms Give possibility to different traditions, to different communities to have their own style of life Either food, or spiritual life doesn’t mean that you have to change the nation state laws You just include in a way or another in the norms the possibility of having not opposite laws, but possibilities as I said if you want to pray at certain times maybe we can do it, and this doesn’t mean we have to change the common national norm Would it not be true however that every immigrant group upon arriving these shores are confronted with that same problem over time? That it takes time for the nation to accept these people and treat people as they ask to be treated? I think that’s the history of immigration in a nutshell In this whole county Just look at the depictions by Thomas Nast When he was taking down the Tweed Ring in New York City of the Irish They were simians, they were apes In his depiction because that’s how he felt about the Irish And my parents got married to great controversy which will surprise many students who deal with all these diversity issues You know an Irish born immigrant marrying a Czech son of immigrants that was viewed as two racial groups intermingling That was very controversial rom at least my dad’s side And today you don’t think of that as being Czechs and Irish being that much different But there were times when the distinctions from one European group to another And there were textbooks at the time That were talking about all the different races Like six races of Europe and they were talking about the different features and so on And they were really dividing people up according to that And happily 100 years later, those distinctions are all but forgotten Absolutely I think that as Michael said and our research institute looks at this globally process of our immigration and it almost a kind of rule that every wave and so forth faces problems and that the strange thing Faces problems from the previous waves of immigrants and that does take time And I think John Stewart put it best he said, every wave or generation of immigrants deserves the right to shit on the next wave of immigrants From a student Based on you comments about American diversity are

the interests of nationalists groups always entrenched in racism or are there national parties that simply prioritize citizens not individual races is that nationalism? Well gentlemen I’m going to try it again I’m not sure I understand the question Based on your comments about American diversity are the interests of nationalists groups always entrenched in racism or are there national parties that simply prioritize citizens not individual races? We have a lot of groups in America that are focused on race So La Raza is the race right NCAAP groups like that have focused on Africans There have been different groups for different ethnics White ethnic groups that have formed over time And to this day, go down to Capital Hill they’re advancing the perceived interests of those groups as if everybody within that category has a shared common interest just because of their race Even if they might personally disagree they speak on behalf of Hispanics or African Americans or what have you And is that racial? Yeah it’s racialism Is it racists? It doesn’t have to be but it could be Okay Bernie and Trump supporters have a lot in common So the question is Is there an opportunity to have them join in an national endeavor or are the differences too separate? This is a great question One of my theories is that, whether he is aware of it or not, Trump is going to make a play for the trade sector the trade union side of the AFL, CIO He’s had the presidents of those unions come in He’s going to be pushing things like infrastructure bills and he’d be happy to give them a lot of regulatory love in what they do in the Department of Labor and elsewhere His trade policies are signing a beautiful song to these unions and that’s the kind of the beginning of this potential realignment And I think that the common between Bernie’s people and his people might be a little bit too much to overcome Except that then diagrams do overlap They certainly overlap on temperament There was this very commonly felt sense that both those groups of voters had had it with the status quo They talked about the establishment with Capital E In the same kind of disdainful, frustrated, angry way So if you can find a way to fuse that Into some kind of common political movement You’d have to do it with a great more at the rank and file level A great diversity of thought of how to deal with that anger How to deal with that disdain and resentment Because I think the two groups would look at the role of government in different ways Look at the faith of coming in and micromanaging some aspect of a persons life And one side of it would say yeah you can do it Here’s how we’d do it The other side would say, “no way Jose” And so you’d have certain aspects of that merger that wouldn’t workout, but it’s certain something that’s not going to go away in the body politic And I think, I would look at tat trade union issue as a potential way to move a block of previously Democratic votes and resources from one column to the other Let’s see how that plays out Again, I’m on thin ice here because I mean people know more about Bernie than I do And I wold think that Bernie would find it a lot harder to get in bed with Trump than Trump with Bernie Well okay well maybe not the right metaphor, but you know what I mean Because yeah I think it’s very interesting on things like infrastructure projects And certainly that 69% the non college educated whites and catering to their difficulties and so forth as a common agenda, but what I understand from Bernie’s agenda it was a lot about the 1% in Wall Street and so forth as well

That’s why I just can’t see him going that way That’s just my take from afar Maybe one different could be the new generation Because I think the new generation the youth that voted for Bernie, and the youth that voted Trump they were different One they were more cosmopolitan, and one they were more patriotic I think We should study that But this, for me is a positive element because if the new generations are looking to travel abroad, interested in different cultures with the migrants that come here This means for the future that we can be optimists So this was I think one difference And these millennials also in Europe are pushing surprisingly because they didn’t live the World War Two but for more integration Not so much surprising because they speak languages, they studied abroad And this is the new generations Will be the ones who will fight against the resurgence of nationalism Because also in Brexit mostly of the old generations voted or at least rural people voted But it’s true that people most isolated obviously And usually the elders are the most isolated because okay the can travel for two reason but they don’t go abroad to work or leave or study So I think this is an important element Do we really have core values? We don’t agree about LGBT rights, or rights for women for example, and neither do some of our immigrants Which side are they supposed to be on in America? In this case, that’s again, that’s the derivative of the core values and how you interpret it how you want to see that value or values become a reality in our society And they are always going to be big differences about that kind of implementation phase It’s the core value that if someone’s going to contest the notion of equality under the law You’ve got a different problem then if you interpret equality under the law under certain different ways But you accept the premise That’s my point It that it’s sort of phase one versus phase two or something It’s a top of a top of the pyramid versus the bottom of the pyramid in terms of implementation Okay that brings to mind another question With all of the diversity, that we have in this country, what would be an overarching theme that could unite this county in a nationalistic fervor? What could a politician a candidate for president offer that might cross all of the various barriers of diversity that we have today? What would be a unifying theme in today’s America? I think as he said, go back to the creed and the foundation father and the light on the hill So it means live up to the values Both internationally and locally This means that if the refugees need help this is the place that should be the first to help I mean not only because of the foreign policy action or the economic wealth, but also because of the values NATO has been founded to defend democratic values And so if we go back to that core values and with leaders that should appeal to that But unfortunately as I said, leaders sometimes they mirror the emotional anger without proposing future tolerant visions The leaders should go back to those core values and then you can sell the idea of including nationalism Yeah it certainly would suggest any major solutions I mean even any kind of economic policies and measures are are always going to be quite selective in who they effect so more on a count of a certain kind of symbolic levels Are important and I would think that one message that would stand out are something along the lines that to guarantee that all voices will be heard I think this was a problem in the last election Some saying that the white working class wasn’t being heard Or in other elections past Certain ethnic minorities not being heard and so forth So it there was some way of not getting We are listening, we will hear you Politicians how they’ll run with that is another thing But I think right now in many places, we are in a position where a lot of voices are simply

being stifled or drowned out and that is bad for democracy itself This is transnational Do you believe that there will ever be a global government system superseding the national system? And if so would yo speculate on what the circumstances might be on what might bring it about? I’ll probably want to defer to Maurizio on this as you know more about it but I mean some sort of framework may emerge In some sort of semi science fiction future But already you know you can say that the EU is an experiment in this in the mini And there are so many problems just keeping 28 countries together And what emerges and what’s being called for more and more are structures that really kind of multi-tiered And each tier is responsible or has a certain type of policy prominence And I mean the UN is certainly not a global governance, but it is a kind of tier at least for conversation and policies often conventions that people sign up to or not Yeah I would say maybe I’m too idealistic and kind of believe a Star Trek future or something like that But certain frameworks will emerge I wouldn’t call them exactly governance They might resemble something like the EU That is groups agreeing on certain levels On certain issues There will be common policies And on others we’ll do it our own way Yes tomorrow afternoon we have a panel on US retreat from international alliances And the end of liberal order We have already form of global world governments With the international treaties You know we created arms trade treaty, chemical weapons We have international institutions like criminal court International Criminal Court But obviously there is a reaction of the sovereign state in saying I want to be by myself Now, there is the idea is that we need in this phase of transition internationally to include the rest Okay we’re in a crisis of the We are in a post western war we define that in the economic environment that deliver order is the eroded because of this exceptionalism in U.K. and U.S And because of the growing of the rest How we converge? There is very good book by Mahbubani from Singapore He’s from Indian origins He’s talking about the global convergence How we include the rest? First of all, with reforms Because United Nations Security Council is obviously after the Second World War But today we have the Greeks How we include the rest in the global governance? And I think if we as European Union not only will we’ll stick around together, but we also try to do socialization with less socialized states Let’s think about North Korea It’s not all the cost and benefit and rational thinking when we go to the rivals We have to understand that the mistrust is created by the isolation And the less we start to socialize it’s very difficult to create a govern world governance So I think again there is the need for international institutions but there is also the need of national states to socialize with the rest In a nutshell I’ll just say Francic Fukuyama wrote a book 25 years ago after the Cold War ended and the wall came down, The End of History A couple of years after that, Samuel Hunington wrote a book called A Clash of Civilizations Looking you know Fukuyama thought we might have the predicate to get where that question was asking if we’d ever get Hunington said no But one thing that could pull us all together will be an alien invasion Thank you panel, it was wonderful Thank you audience [applauding crowd] And please remember when you’re allocating funds this year for charities please keep in mind that you love this C.U.A and put us on your card Thank you