美國傳播自由效果好不好？看看伊拉克阿富汗利比亞

美國傳播“自由”效果好不好？看看伊拉克阿富汗利比亞

 

約翰·米爾斯海默

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCVl0ZD46Z0&ab_channel=

所以弗蘭克的論點是，我們的背後有風，自由民主將遍布全球； 因為這是最好的政治製度，每個人都會意識到，一旦你開始這樣思考； 然後你開始認為你可以幹預這裏、那裏以及一切。

那麽進展如何？這一切進展如何？

結果非常糟糕，想想阿富汗，想想伊拉克戰爭，想想利比亞，想想敘利亞，想想我們幹預的所有地方，你知道崇高的意圖。 我的好朋友史蒂夫·沃爾特（Steve Walt）寫了一本書，名叫《善意的地獄》（The hell of Good Intentions）。 因為他基本上知道為什麽； 這些人肯定想要自由； 因為它遇到了民族主義。

哦，我明白這是你知道的關鍵，這又回到了你之前的問題； 自由主義和民族主義衝突在哪裏？

民族主義就是自決； 如果您是澳大利亞人； 你不希望美國人進來告訴你如何管理你的政治體係。 我們不再是它的一部分；我們是它的一部分； 但這對每個人來說都是如此，伊拉克人、阿富汗人，他們不希望美國人幹預他們的政治和社會生活，告訴他們應該擁有什麽樣的政治製度； 他們的社會製度應該是什麽樣子等等。

美國傳播的“自由”效果好不好？看看伊拉克 阿富汗 利比亞 

John Mearsheimer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCVl0ZD46Z0&ab_channel=

So Frank's argument is that we have the wind at our back right, the liberal democracy is going to spread across the planet; because it is the best political system and everybody realizes that once you begin to think like that; then you begin to think that you can intervene here, there and everything.

Well how did that go, how did that all work out? 
It worked out very badly, think Afghanistan, think the Iraq War, think about Libya, think about Syria, think about all the places that we intervened with you know Noble intentions. My good friend Steve Walt wrote a book called The hell of Good Intentions; because he basically know why; what it surely they those people want to be free; because it ran into nationalism. 

Oh I see that's the key you know this gets back to your earlier question; where liberalism and nationalism Clash?

Nationalism is all about self-determination; if you're Australian; you don't want the Americans coming in and telling you how to run your political System. Not anymore we're s of it we're s of it ; but that's true of everybody the Iraqis the afghanis they don't want the Americans intervening in their political and social life and telling them what kind of political system they should have; what their social system should look like and so forth and so on.

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

約翰·米爾斯海默論自由主義與民族主義之間的鬥爭

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDyZ8n4MayQ&ab_channel=

2024年1月15日

在本集中，羅布與芝加哥大學政治學 R. 溫德爾·哈裏森傑出服務教授約翰·米爾斯海默 (John Mearsheimer) 進行了交談。 米爾斯海默對自由主義提出了細致入微的觀點，強調其對國內的積極影響與作為外交政策方針應用時的潛在陷阱之間的關鍵區別。 他深入探討了他對現代自由主義的看法，探討了這一概念的“十字軍衝動”及其在幹預其他國家所感知的權利方麵的作用。

米爾斯海默批判性地審視了美國在自由主義普遍性信念的驅使下試圖將其價值觀強加於其他國家，導致對伊拉克、阿富汗、利比亞和敘利亞等國家進行幹預的例子。 他強調了此類幹預措施的意外後果，往往導致受影響地區民族主義抬頭。 米爾斯海默探討了自由主義和民族主義之間錯綜複雜的聯係，表達了他對往往助長民族主義情緒的現行外交政策立場的不同意見。 米爾斯海默對自由主義的複雜性及其在外交政策領域與民族主義的交叉提供了富有洞察力的觀點。

John Mearsheimer on the Battle Between Liberalism vs Nationalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDyZ8n4MayQ&ab_channel=

2024年1月15日

In this episode, Rob chats with John Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Mearsheimer presents a nuanced perspective on liberalism, emphasising a crucial distinction between its positive impact domestically and its potential pitfalls when applied as a foreign policy approach. He delves into his views on modern-day liberalism, exploring the concept's "crusader impulse" and its role in intervening in other states' perceived rights. 

Mearsheimer critically examines instances where the U.S., driven by a belief in the universality of liberalism, has sought to impose its values on other nations, resulting in interventions like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. He highlights the unintended consequences of such interventions, often leading to the rise of nationalism in the affected regions. Mearsheimer explores the intricate bond between liberalism and nationalism, expressing his disagreement with prevailing foreign policy stances that tend to fuel nationalist sentiments. Mearsheimer provides insightful perspectives on the complexities of liberalism and its intersection with nationalism in the realm of foreign policy.

Host:

Before today's video I'd like to invite you to an evening with Constantine kissen he's the author of an immigrants
0:05
love letter to the west and the co-host of the hugely popular trigonometry podcast he'll be touring Australia in
0:12
February and March giving a fresh perspective that's both enlightening and engaging to book your tickets head to
0:17
our website cis.org DOI or click the link in the description I'll see you there Iraqis the afghanis they don't
0:26
want the Americans intervening in their political and social life and telling
0:32
them what kind of political system they should have what their social system should look like and so forth and so on
0:38
but that's what the United States is into I'm Rob forid and this is liberalism in question one man who does
0:45
question liberalism is my guest John mimer John is uh the H Wendell Harrison
0:51
distinguished service professor of political science at the University of Chicago Chicago where he's taught since
0:57
1982 he tells me he's graduate from West Point and even served in the American Military for 10 years during the Vietnam
1:04
ER he's written many books the one that I most like was the one the great delusion liberal dreams and International realities; John welcome

John Mearsheimer: 

my pleasure to be here

Host:

you are not against liberalism

John Mearsheimer: 

No I love liberalism as a political ideology for a particular state so in

terms of domestic politics I think I'm very fortunate to have been born and raised in a liberal democracy like the
1:33
United States but I think liberalism as a foreign policy is a prescription for
1:39
really big trouble if not disaster so I discriminate between liberalism as a
1:44
political system on the home front versus liberalism is a foreign policy okay well let's unpack that what what
1:50
what is liberalism in your mind simply defined liberalism is based on two assumptions one is that the individual
2:00
matters more than the society in which he or she lives so liberalism is all
2:05
about individualism that's Point number one and point number two is the belief that
2:13
people cannot agree about first principles to put that in slightly different terms it's the belief that
2:20
people cannot agree on what is the best life and sometimes those disagreements
2:27
are so profound that they'll kill each other these individuals okay the liberal
2:33
solution to this problem is number one
2:38
to emphasize rights and the idea that
2:44
everybody has the right to live life the way they see fit so even though you and
2:51
I may have different views on what is the best religion we can be members of that
2:59
religion that we think is the correct one if you want to be a Protestant and I want to be a Catholic fine right so
3:07
that's Point number one there are rights is point number two is you preach the
3:12
norm of Tolerance and you preach the norm of Tolerance in a liberal Society
3:17
because again people don't agree on first principles then the third basic element of the liberal
3:26
solution to these problems that I described is that you need a state and you need a state just in case the norm
3:34
of Tolerance doesn't work in other words if you don't tolerate me and you decide you're going to kill me I have to be
3:39
able to appeal to the state but very importantly that state cannot be too
3:45
powerful because once you get a really powerful state in the liberal story that
3:50
states be that state begins to infringe on your right or my right to live life
3:57
the way we want so you have to separate a between civil society and the state
4:02
where in Civil Society you and I have certain rights that allow us to live the good life the way we see fit it's a I
4:10
think Francis fukiyama said it's a solution to the problem of pluralism because there is pluralism to
4:16
instead of the liberal State deciding the big questions of life it leaves that to individuals and communities it sets
4:23
the framework in which they can live together absolutely right it's liberalism is based on the assumption
4:28
that there is no truth you have a particular version of what is the truth it's the truth from your point of view I
4:34
have a particular version of what is the truth from my point of view and what
4:39
happens in a liberal Society is you're allowed to but you could be a member of liberal society and believe there is a truth it just it's not the job of the
4:46
state to tell you what it is well I can believe there's a truth yes but I have
4:51
to understand in a liberal society that there other people disagree yes that's true I mean this is the fundamental
4:57
problem as I said in the beginning liberalism is based on two assumptions one the focus is on the individual not
5:03
the society that he or she lives in number two people cannot agree on first principles put in the rhetoric that
5:10
we're using now we're saying people cannot agree on what is the truth and
5:15
once that happens right if you get a case where people disagree in fundamental ways this is Catholics
5:22
versus Protestants in the days of Hobbs versus Lo right people were willing to kill each other so you had these
5:28
religious wars although I guess you could to at least believe in individualism and tolerance
5:33
and rights must have that that Inc commmon to beable society yes must have some truism you believe
5:40
in yeah well you I mean the all subject of Rights is very complicated because
5:46
yes when you talk about rights in a liberal Society you're talking about inalienable rights right these are
5:54
rights that apply universally and in a very important way you're kind of beginning to to talk
5:59
about truths you're saying everybody is Ming actually metaphysical climbs matter of fact is I notice you distinguish two
6:06
conss of liberalism Progressive and what you called modus Fendi liberalism what's the difference between the two well
6:12
modus Fendi liberalism is what's that mean by the way uh to Latin for yeah
6:18
just to let people yeah yeah modus ofendi liberalism in my story is associated with a limited
6:25
State yes and all it does this limited state is make sure that people don't kill each other and that a very
6:33
libertarian view of a very libertarian view yeah and what's happened over time
6:38
is that uh We've developed a much more powerful State uh in Liberal societies
6:45
and that state is interested in making sure that people have for example equal
6:51
rights and it will do all sorts of things to interfere in the Affairs of
6:58
individuals uh that begin to sort of tread on liberal principles it's a very
7:03
fine line there and that's often we the CIS often discussing whereabouts we think the state should or shouldn't be
7:09
in this in these matters it's a matter of dispute within in Liberal societies when the state should intervene to
7:16
overcome inequality or let people have the freedom to FL to flourish by themselves right that that is the big
7:23
question question right and the problem that you really face here is that starting in the late 19
7:30
Century uh with industrialization yes uh and the rise of
7:35
nationalism you you reached a point where people wanted the state to do all
7:42
sorts of things to make life better for great numbers of people in the society
7:49
and the state grew in size and the state began to interfere more and more uh in
7:55
the life of the average individual so it's no longer moce for vendi liberalism
8:01
you have a state that has a progressive agenda you have a point of view which is best or or just observe it you
8:07
describing this but you personally think is the state good at helping people become more equal or is it UNH helpful
8:13
should be left to more comp natural competition in markets do you come down on any I don't think there's a simple
8:18
answer to that I mean I I think you that's why I asked the question yeah no no I think you need a state yes yes and
8:24
I think in the modern world that state has to be quite powerful but the same time from a liberal point of view it's
8:32
very important that that state not be too powerful you want to put limits on it this is one of the principal Reasons
8:38
I'm against fighting Wars all over the planet because once you start fighting
8:43
Wars all over the planet you create a very powerful State you create a National Security State and in the
8:50
United States for example we have a system of checks and balances where the
8:55
the legislative branch of our government is supposed to be responsible for
9:00
declaring war but that has gone by the Boris and the president in the United
9:05
States today can start a war any time and and often does and often does
9:11
exactly I want to come to your pH fear just a moment just one other matter you you make the point that that
9:17
any political philosophy has a view of human nature you you you there's a commitment to what what are humans like
9:23
that's correct and liberalism has one and you think it's got some deficiencies well I think the two
9:29
assumptions are very interesting and very important one of them is right on the money and the other one I think is
9:35
in a very important way for it right the one that is correct is that people cannot agree on first principles they
9:41
cannot agree on what is truth or what is the good life and it's just very important to understand that um but with
9:49
regard to the focus on the individual over the society I believe that we are
9:55
all social human beings right we we we're born into and
10:01
we live in societies and what we do is we carve out space for our individualism
10:07
we're not born individuals we become individuals through our families and context that's correct soct the myth the
10:13
liberal myth of the is solitary people who then join together in a social contract is that just that compl dis
10:19
exactly exactly but I I want to be clear I do understand the importance of individualism I love the fact that you
10:25
know in a country like the United States I'm free to say and do all sorts of things so liberalism under sorry John
10:32
liberalism underplays the social nature of human human beings absolutely this is why my argument in the great delusion
10:38
this book that I wrote is that nationalism is absolutely essential to
10:44
make liberalism work because when you have an ideology like liberalism that
10:50
focuses exclusively on the individual the qu and those individuals can't agree
10:56
on first principles the question is what's the glue that holds them all together right and a liberal Society
11:02
without nationalism you have very powerful centrifugal forces at play because again people cannot agree on
11:07
first principles so what holds what's the glue that holds it all together and my argument is that nationalism is one
11:15
form of glue a very important form of glue so my argument is you and I live in
11:24
Liberal nation states we don't live in just liberal political entity we live in
11:31
a liberal nation state and that nation state embellishes what nationalism is
11:38
all what's a na what's a nation John from your point of view a nation is a large group of people who have a very
11:44
powerful sense that they have certain things in common that bands them together Australians have a certain
11:52
sense of what it means to be an Australian and how being an Australian is different than being Chinese or being
11:59
even an American or a Brit right you have this especially during the cricket you would to see us then exactly no
12:06
that's a really good example yes the as just bring it out very quickly for us yes yes sport almost everybody agrees at
12:12
this point in time that Sports is where nationalism manifests in profound ways
12:18
so again my argument is that we are social beings from the get-go and we carve out space for our individualism
12:25
and to use your rhetoric we're not individuals who form social contracts is is we we're we're trying this country
12:33
and I think we're doing fairly well at being a quote Multicultural nation is that is is is that a possible can you be
12:38
Multicultural Nation yes yeah well I mean it all depends on how you define the nation look at the United States the
12:45
United States was basically at the start pretty much an Anglo-Saxon Protestant country then starting in around 1830
12:53
1835 huge numbers of immigrants began to come into the United States Germans
12:58
Irish Jews poles and Italians those were the big five groups and then since 1965
13:05
when we uh reopen the gates which had been closed in 1924 we've gotten huge
13:11
numbers of Hispanics and huge numbers of uh of Asians so you have this
13:17
Multicultural Society almost from the beginning and American identity might
13:24
have been a might have been uh identified with being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the beginning
13:32
but you know by 1900 certainly by 1945 when World War II ends that's gone by
13:39
the Bor but for the nation to be a nation must be must be a sense of us the the imagined Community it's an yes
13:46
that's that's the Benedict Anderson's famous term which really captures it it's an imagined community so I can have
13:53
somebody who's black and American right or Puerto Rican or some form of Hispanic
14:00
or Filipino or Chinese who's an American and I have no problem with that whatsoever because American identity is
14:07
not identified for the vast majority of with the color of your skin or your
14:12
religion I won't get down this too far but some countries I notice have maybe two racial groups a minority and a
14:20
majority and they often I struggle for nationalism because the majority identifi with the nation minority find
14:26
themselves in a difficult situation I'm oh absolutely that can be very serious for national no absolutely no question
14:33
about that the United States uh is uh an exception in this regard and as you
14:39
remember people used to talk when I was young about white Australia indeed and that world is thankfully in my opinion
14:45
gone by the B it's probably helped to by the fact that both our nations are irelands I know you're not really an Ireland but you got to see either side
14:51
Canadians in the north there's a way in which you're not like a country in Europe which constantly changing borders
14:56
and and interacting populations that's that's more difficult be to get nationhood well if you think of Eastern Europe you know you go back to Eastern
15:03
Europe let's say 1918 World War I ends and you look what Eastern Europe looks like here all these different groups
15:09
that are mixed up now one of your key points is that when it comes to a wrestle nationalism beat liberalism
15:15
every time correct because we're social beings first and foremost first and foremost okay so if and there good
15:22
evidence of these get example where nationalism has utterly beat indiv individualism I me
15:29
liberalism well I think that the fact is that um uh if you look at uh a society
15:38
where there are uh two groups one is the dominant group that identifies the N the
15:44
nation is identified with nationalism in that country is largely identified with and you have a minority group uh that is
15:53
not accepted and is seen as a threat to the majority group and and that majority
15:59
group tries to crush the minority group and this is initially a liberal Society
16:06
this is a case of nationalism trumping liberalism and there' have been some cases some sad cases in Europe and in
16:12
Asia where that's happened yeah it's true in the United States as well I mean if you think about you know if you think
16:18
about how I mean put slavery aside which is really the best example think about how whites treated
16:25
blacks if you look at the history of immigration into the United States uh what happened to those five ethnic
16:31
groups that came in uh starting in the 1830s especially the Irish uh the Irish
16:38
who immigrated from Europe to the United States were treated uh like dirt it is
16:43
really horrible there's a book in uh published in the United States a couple
16:48
decades ago now it's called when the Irish became White just think about the
16:54
title right title says it all when say it all says it all says
16:59
yeah yeah and uh so it is important to understand that
17:05
there is in the United States is widely seen as a liberal Society a liberal democracy since you know 17 nationalism
17:12
is there nationalism is there well I'll give you the best example of that think of mateline Albright's famous saying we
17:22
are the indispensable Nation do you understand that word Nation Nation yes
17:28
yes we are the indispensable Nation the word indispensable think of the chauvinism that unpend that we're
17:34
telling you you you Australians we we Americans are the indispensable Nation
17:39
we are the most successful multiculture Nation on Earth John you should know that right that's exactly right that's
17:45
what you get that's that sense of exceptionalism right that that is at the
17:50
heart of of nationalism and as you were pointing out this often times causes trouble when you have mixed ethnic grp
17:58
groups or mixed groups or nations trying to try to get separate from other nations at the wars when Yugoslavia
18:03
collapsed Absol yep cze lakia the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia after World War II
18:10
after the Cold War let's now go to can we take this from the inside of nation state and transpose it to the quote
18:16
rules ba rules-based International
18:21
[Music]
18:27
order [Music]
18:37
can we have liberalism on a global scale John well the problem that you face is
18:44
that there is a crusader impulse built into liberalism and the Crusader impulse
18:53
revolves around rights Liberals are obsessed with with
18:58
rights individual rights individual rights are a wonderful thing most of the
19:04
time but once you talk about inalienable rights that means everybody on the
19:10
planet has the same rights and therefore there's a powerful incentive to run
19:15
around the planet and protect the rights of other individuals individuals who
19:22
live outside your country's borders so what you get with the United
19:28
States during the unipolar moment this is after the cold war ends in 1989 for
19:33
the next let's say 20 plus years right what the United States is doing is
19:41
running around the planet trying to do social engineering on a massive scale
19:47
because it wants to turn every country in the world into a liberal democracy
19:52
and it wants to make sure that all those people who live in those countries have this certain now you're thinking you
19:59
think you think of the Middle East you're thinking of yeah I mean this is what the Bush Doctrine was all about the
20:04
Bush Doctrine which was enunciated before we went into Iraq in March of 2 before before
20:10
91 well we were talking about it even before 911 but after 9/11 is when the
20:17
Bush Doctrine was enunciated right but there's no question it was there I'll
20:22
tell you where it starts it starts with Francis Fuki is famous PR yes I yes
20:27
right the end of history just think the last man of the end of History yeah just think about what fukiyama argument is
20:33
that now that the cold war is over with and we defeated fascism in the first half of the 20th century and we defeated
20:40
communism in the second half of the 20th century what's going to happen next liberal democracy everywhere so Frank's
20:47
argument is that we have the wind at our back right the liberal democracy is going to spread across the planet
20:54
because it is the best political system and everybody realizes that once you begin to think like that then
21:01
you begin to think that you can intervene Here There and every well how did how did they go how did how did that
21:06
all work out it worked out very badly th think Afghanistan think the
21:14
Iraq War think about Libya think about Syria think about all the places that we
21:20
intervened with you know Noble intentions my good friend Steve Walt wrote a book called the hell of good
21:27
intentions because he basically now why why what it surely they those people
21:32
want to be free because it ran into nationalism oh I that's the key you know
21:37
this gets back to your earlier question where liberalism and nationalism Clash nationalism is all about
21:44
self-determination if you're Australian you don't want the Americans coming in and telling you how to run your
21:49
political system not anymore we're s of it we're s of it but that's true of everybody the Iraqis the afghanis they
21:57
don't want the the Americans intervening in their political and social life and
22:02
telling them what kind of political system they should have what their social system should look like and so
22:09
forth and so on but that's what the United States is into the United States thinks that Frank fukiyama has got it
22:15
right that we've got the wind at our back number one number two we're incredibly powerful right and that we
22:23
have a responsibility both a moral and strategic responsibility to intervene in
22:28
these countries to make them look like us because the idea is if you can make the whole planet look like Australia the
22:35
United States Britain New Zealand so forth and so on we're all going to live happily ever after and add to that too I
22:42
hope you're not offended by this but Americans often are not sensitive to other cultures I mean that's a
22:48
truism of course am Americans are almost
22:54
completely insensitive culture that's going to look at do that even apply to the UN producing these uh intervening
23:00
about the rights of women and rights of children you know there's a whole International movement out there is that also fall under your criticism of
23:08
international liberalism of course rights of women what if you have a country like Afghanistan that's run by
23:14
people who think that women are basically second class citizens what do you do about that my basic view is I
23:21
reject that view right i' want to see women treated the same as men but if the people in Afghanistan stand one so you
23:29
just left them big you're not got to go in there and rescue them that's correct but I am an anomaly in the United States
23:36
going to say you're very unusual Mo most American foreign policy
23:42
uh experts and policy makers want to go into places like
23:47
Afghanistan uh and do social engineering or and if we don't go in with military force they want to intervene in all
23:54
sorts of other ways they want to use NOS they want to use the United Nations uh they want to use American Funding uh to
24:02
socially engineer countries like Afghanistan so that women have equal rights again I think it's a noble
24:09
intention but the problem is that you have countries around the world that
24:15
don't want to look like so your argument your argument John is not that it's not a good idea the AR it simply want work
24:21
and that's what thought gooda it simply can't be done well again it also gets back to my
24:28
starting assumption in describing liberalism that people disagree about
24:34
what the truth is all right let me just give you an example fascism in the 1930s
24:40
in Germany the overwhelming majority of Germans really liked fascism they were
24:48
not unhappy with fascism EV would so right given a choice between liberalism and fascism they would take fascism
24:55
which which they did in effect they did which in effect they did right with the help of uh the Nazi machine right well
25:01
hit Hitler was venerated Hitler was the only leader of a Western Country should
25:07
was the only leader of an industrialized country who pulled this country out of the depression very important to
25:12
understand that he's the only leader who pulled this country out of the depression in the thirs that is so
25:18
depressing okay but I'm I'm not defending no know you but I'm I'm just
25:23
saying you're trying to tell the truth but the question then becomes how do you
25:28
think about a country that likes Fascism do do do you say I'm going to go in
25:34
there and change the system I'm going to overthrow the government that's a good
25:39
example what if you knew about the Holocaust you knew about the wholesale genocide of a people would that justify
25:49
invention I mean that's that's a very high case but that's the think of it but well first of
25:55
all a lot depends on whether do you think you can go in and prevent genocide
26:00
on a uh you know at some reasonable price I mean take Rwanda I think you
26:06
brought it too yeah we were very hesitant to go into Rwanda at first even though that was an easy case for
26:12
intervention right the costs would have been very low I was in favor of going into Rwanda like that I think it was
26:19
back in 1994 1993 I can't remember which year uh but going into Germany you know
26:26
let's assume that you're correct and in 1939 we understood that which we didn't
26:32
I I don't from we did not of course we did not understand the Holocaust was coming but let's assume that we had
26:37
would we have gone in I think the answer is we definitely would not have gone in wow and uh I think that this is because
26:46
of nationalism it's very unusual for one group of people to be willing to pay a
26:52
significant if not huge blood price to rescue and other people and this is is
26:57
why the Jews are so enamored with Israel we have our own State we have our own
27:04
state where we can protect ourselves right and if you look at the Palestinians today why do the Palestinians want to State because the
27:11
Palestinians understand what happens when you don't have your own State and by the way the concept of a nation state
27:17
nation state that's nationalism we're talking about the Palestinians having a state talking about the Jews having a
27:24
state what was the name of Theodore H's book his famous book right he is the
27:32
famous zist he's the father of Zion theor hsel his book is called the Jewish
27:37
State just think about those words nation state Jewish state state Jewish
27:43
is fation State exactly there's a Jewish Nation Jewish tribe give their own State
27:49
Palestinians want their own State the Kurds want their own State and the reason that this is the power of
27:56
nationalism it's in inextricably bound up with survival if you have a nation
28:01
that Nation needs a state and it needs a state because that's the best way for
28:07
that Nation to protect itself and again think the Jews think the Palestinians
28:12
think the can't there be benide Empires to have Many Nations under under a
28:18
overarching protection well first of all you could have a
28:24
multinational country yes right but Empires are no more right you you can
28:31
have an Empire uh I mean like the British Empire where India was under the British Empire Kenya was under the
28:38
British Empire those days are long God I'm not saying have it now I'm thinking theoretically or interesting the British Empire was was sufficiently successful
28:45
because it did not try and impose a great deal did try impose some you why did the British Empire
28:53
disintegrate because the people did not want to be told by the British what to do nationalism is yeah in fact they tell
28:59
be why prep National even we didn't want to what to do I'm shocked to hear that and did you know the same thing is true
29:04
of the United States yes well you broke away you broke away yeah CID I mean so
29:10
John that's that's that's the point there you see the power of nationalism but I want to be clear here I think
29:16
liberalism and nationalism can coexist right I talked to Victor within
29:22
within a state within a state yeah I talked to Victor Orban who is the leader in uh hung Hungary I had a three-hour
29:29
conversation with him and we talked at some length about this he hates liberalism and he likes nationalism and
29:36
his argument is that Hungary is an illiberal democracy he believes it's a democracy y but he really he really
29:45
relishes nationalism and he thinks nationalism and liberalism can't coexist
29:51
I think there's serious tensions for sure between liberalism and nationalism
29:56
but I think they can c coexist and as I said to you before I think nationalism
30:01
provides the glue that keeps a liberal State together number one and number two
30:08
liberalism tempers some of nationalism's dark sides so if we're not going to go
30:14
around the world and make the world a better place by our armies and and um NOS what should we be doing in the world
30:19
be a good example be a good example be the city on the hell concentrate on
30:25
getting very amican think to say get getting things right at all and you can go around the world and tell people that
30:31
you think that liberal democracy is the best political system and point out the virtues uh and so forth and so on and
30:39
but otherwise I would stay out of the domestic politics of other countries even if I disagree in fundamental ways
30:46
with the way they ran their country with the one exception genocide they're uh I
30:51
I wouldn't be uh willing in most cases to go in and put an end to it uh and
30:59
uh and and by the way by my you know to talk about the Holocaust by my count the
31:06
Germans murdered 5.7 million Jews my argument is overall they murdered 22
31:12
million people yes right yes I'm that this was a killing machine that murdered
31:18
huge numbers of people right the Jews were certainly the number one targeted
31:23
group they they wer the only group they were not the only people right there you read about The Hunger plan uh and
31:30
general Plan East oh my God what those Germans were up to uh in the late 30s
31:36
and in World War II uh but but anyway with regard to genocide uh do I I'd be
31:43
willing to in most cases go in so you are a liberal but who questions it you're a liberal in
31:48
question no I I'm a liberal on the whole front yes no I'm I'm committed to
31:54
liberalism but not but a liberal foreign policy I do not like I'm a realist when
32:01
it comes to foreign policy there you are and a lot of it has to do with nationalism you know if you look at my
32:07
book The Great delusion I say in the very beginning that one of my motives for writing the book was to think about
32:14
the relationship between liberalism nationalism and
32:19
realism okay yep so what I've said to you today is that on the home front I
32:25
care about liberalism and nationalism and how they interact with each other and I think they can
32:31
coexist and they can help each other Thrive and then I said with regard to foreign policy where I think about
32:38
liberalism versus realism I like realism because liberalism runs into nationalism
32:46
when you pursue and realism is thinking about your own your own Nations rights and pows yeah yeah it focuses on your
32:53
country the survival of your country and you there's no social engineering in the
32:59
real story John Misha thank you very much it's my pleasure it's been great to talk to you that was yet another in the
33:06
liberalism in Christian series I'm Rob forai thank you for [Music]
33:13
[Applause] [Music] watching