Harry Litman [00:00:07] Welcome to Talking Feds, a round table that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Litman. Quite a lot is happening on the home front this week. New COVID cases continue to drop, and vaccinations are proving broadly effective. The president signed a flurry of executive orders on immigration. The Democrats set the stage for approving the administration's preferred $1.9 trillion economic package, three times the amount the Republicans are willing to authorize by a bare majority with no Republican support. The GOP rebuffed efforts to sanction Representative Marjorie Taylor Green, following discovery of a years long torrent of vile and ludicrous invective. But the Senate as a whole, with Democrats leading the way, shortly thereafter barred her from serving on committees.
But today we turn our view outward, across both oceans, to take stock of the United States standing after four years of aberrant foreign policy that seemed designed to alienate our allies and cozy up to our adversaries. As with the assault on domestic law enforcement agencies, Trump has disparaged our traditional role and rattled the world. So Biden, who throughout his career has prided himself on his expertise in foreign policy, now faces a series of tasks to rehabilitate the United States, a task made enormously complicated by the rise of China to near economic parity with the United States. How deep is the damage to our international interests from the last four years, and is it fully reversible? How will Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken approach early tests in Russia and Myanmar? What does Biden have to do to restore the full confidence of our traditional allies? To answer these and other pressing questions, we are very fortunate to have an ideal set of guests.
They are: Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Anne is currently a staff writer for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the Agora Institute, where she co-directs Arena, a program on disinformation in 21st century propaganda. She is a board member for the Renewed Democracy Initiative, an American political organization promoting and defending liberal democracy in the US and abroad. A prolific author, her latest book is "The Twilight of Democracy The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism." It's excellent, and you can hear much more about it in an interview she and I did on patreon.com. Anne, thanks very much for being here.
Anne Applebaum [00:03:10] Thanks so much for having me.
Harry Litman [00:03:11] Garry Kasparov, known to millions as one of the greatest, if not the greatest chess players in history, Garry is now one of the world's foremost advocates for democracy and human rights. He is a senior visiting fellow at the Oxford Martin School, with a focus on human-machine collaboration. He is chair of the Human Rights Foundation and chairs its international council, and in 2017 he founded the Renewed Democracy Initiative. He is a prolific author as well, chess books and also politics and democracy, notably his 2015 book "Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped." Welcome to Talking Fads, Garry Kasparov.
Garry Kasparov [00:03:56] Thank you for inviting me.
Harry Litman [00:03:57] And Uriel Epshtein, the executive director of the Renewed Democracy Initiative, which was created three years ago by Garry Kasparov to combat populism, promote core constitutional values and offer a home to political centrists. It's his first visit to Talking Feds, thanks for being here, Uriel, and since I've mentioned it three times already, maybe you can give us a very quick account of what is the Renewed Democracy Initiative.
Uriel Epshtein [00:04:27] Thank you for having me, and for having all of us here. So RDI, as you mentioned, was founded a few years ago in response to what amounted to an incredible rise in extremism on both political sides of the aisle, both the far left and the far right, not just in the US, but worldwide. And now, of course, we focus on the US where we're trying to combat this very political extremism, and trying to defend democracy by bringing together those who find themselves within the center, roughly speaking, from center left to center right, but most importantly, those who are willing to prioritize what we would consider to be key liberal democratic principles. Now, these are the principles in the classical sense, right? So this isn't a partisan question, it's just one of whether or not people are willing to prioritize things like freedom of speech, press, assembly and so forth, the very principles upon which our republic was founded. And so that's what RDI is all about.
Harry Litman [00:05:21] Gotcha, so sort of classical, liberal (small L) virtues, like from the tradition of John Locke, et cetera, as opposed to the notion of liberal within the American political spectrum today. Is that, is that fair?
Uriel Epshtein [00:05:33] Yeah, that's exactly right.
Harry Litman [00:05:34] Got it. OK, let's start here, and I'll direct this to Anne, but anyone can jump in. But Anne, you've written over the past four years that the example that the US sets for the world, which you also call by far the most important weapon the United States of America has ever wielded, has been badly damaged. So I want to focus on how bad the damage is, and even more on whether it persists. What damage remains that just sort of showing up and resuming a traditional, decent, thoughtful, disciplined foreign policy doesn't automatically repair?
Anne Applebaum [00:06:15] I guess I can start with a little bit about the nature of the damage, because I'm not sure all Americans understand it. The point about Trump wasn't that he was rude or that he tweeted too much or that he said offensive things. As the president of the United States, he went out of his way to develop links with authoritarian and autocratic leaders, most notably the leader of North Korea, but also Saudi Arabia. He was visibly uncomfortable with the leaders of Europe and the West and of other democratic nations in Asia and elsewhere, and he also used the language and the tactics that authoritarians are using in other places. So, for example, his attack on the media as the enemy of the people, the calling using the expression fake news to demean professional journalists. This is exactly what is done in other places. This is what Erdogan does in Turkey, this is what Putin does in Russia. The attack on the free media is a standard tool that's used around the world by autocrats.
And then, of course, his attack on our electoral process, which really began in 2016 or before that with the birtherism lie, culminating in sort of creating the grotesque spectacle of January the 6th when followers of President Trump physically attacked Congress while it was counting the votes and while it was certifying the presidency. And those things have been seen and understood around the world, both by autocrats and by Democrats and democracy activists as actions that they find familiar. This is how autocrats behave, they attack the rules of democracy, they attack free elections, they attack free press. It was understood that that was what he was doing. And it isn't something that goes away quickly because Joe Biden might come along, he might be using a different kind of language, he might be orienting American foreign policy in a different kind of way, but everybody knows that Trump was president for four years. Everybody knows that he has enormous support in the United States, and everybody is aware that he or someone like him or one of his children could be the presidential candidate in four years time. So we could have this set of ideas returning. They now dominate one of our two main political parties, and that has made the example of the United States as a democracy have a lot less power and influence. And that has, it has implications in all kinds of ways.
Harry Litman [00:08:31] Just to follow up, yes, everybody knows he was president for four years. Everyone's aware of the damage he wrought. But what is the concrete worry going forward such that the restoration of a more orthodox administration doesn't calm the jitters?
Anne Applebaum [00:08:51] I do think that the Biden administration understands this. We will see in the next two or three months a kind of American outreach to the democratic world. There may be a kind of big conference, there may be special meetings, and there will be an attempt to reorient American foreign policy again towards the promotion of democracy and towards close links with other democracies. I am a little afraid that a project like that could end in nice pictures, and we all have a meeting in Berlin, and there's a group photo and it could, and it wouldn't amount to much. What I'm hoping happens is that Biden and Blinken and others use this opportunity to refocus our Democratic alliances on big projects that we can all do together. For example, that we can all find a way to regulate social media together, to create an Internet that is good for democracy, that reflects the values of democracy, that would be good for all of us, as opposed to the autocratic Internet that is used in China. I'm hoping that we can all work together to fight against kleptocracy and money laundering and international corruption, which, of course, Trump was partly the product of, which is what is keeping Putin in power. And a real focus of the democracies on this issue could also change laws and make the world a better place for Democrats and for people who are law abiding. Rebuilding the alliance is not so much in going back and waiving the NATO flag, but saying here's what we're all doing together now, this would be a real way to re-ignite America's positive influence in the world, and also to reignite interest in democracy and its effectiveness in coping with these kinds of problems.
Harry Litman [00:10:30] OK, so you describe the kind of persistent problem as being the possibility of another Trump. I mean, you also explain why Biden can't simply show up, in particular, he has to cooperate. But that said, if that concrete worry is still 70 million who like Trump, another one could rise again, is that just simply an ineradicable cancer that is, no matter what we do, only after a generation of no Trumps could we be back on steady ground, if that's the concern? Biden can be miraculous and pitch perfect, but of course, everyone knows that risk remains.
Anne Applebaum [00:11:13] So from the point of view of international politics, yes, it's an ineradicable problem. This is part of our history, this is part of our international image around the world, it doesn't go away. It's stuck with us. I mean, that doesn't mean that all of our problems are ineradicable. But, yes, this is a burden that we now carry until we've had several elections in which someone like Trump doesn't win.
Garry Kasparov [00:11:35] I agree with Anne, I can add that America must become more stable in it's diplomacy or allies are never sure what to expect, and enemies are content to wait for favorable change. Granting foreign policy and values sounds idealistic and utopian, but as pointed out by Soviet dissidents decades ago, the most moral foreign policy also turns out to be the most effective because it is consistent. America and its allies can lay a foundation for cooperation and set high standards. And of course, they must adhere to those standards themselves, and that's what Trump caused tremendous damage because of his attacks on the free press, the rule of law and the checks and balances of the political system. Those were grievous wounds to the United States and then also destroyed American credibility as a symbol and defender of the values on which the nation was founded. I think we could go a little bit back in history just to analyze the Cold War. I was born and raised in the Soviet Union on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and we all looked at America as a beacon of hope.
The Cold War was won on American values that were shared by both parties and nearly every American, and institutions that were created by Democrat Harry Truman were triumphant 40 years later, thanks to the courage of a Republican, Ronald Reagan. And this bipartisan consistency created the decades of strategic stability that is great strength of democracies that only democracies can rely on the lasting institutions and strongest decisions that outlast politicians allow for these long range planning. But unfortunately, today it's exactly the opposite, because on both sides of political equilibrium in America, we see forces, very powerful forces that are arguing for America's withdrawal, though it's Trump's motto, 'America First,' but when you look at the far left, you know, we hear similar voices. The left thinks that America has little worth contributing, and that the world will get along better without it. On the right, now, the thinking that America doesn't need anything from anyone, it doesn't care what happens to the rest of the world. And so as often happens on the political horseshoe, these opposing views meet in the middle at Yankee go home. So that's why it's not surprising to see Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul agreeing on America's need to retreat.
Harry Litman [00:13:52] But let's frame this in the concrete setting of Myanmar. We have a military coup, and in terms of the US values, that's antithetical to them. On the other hand, it appears the situation on the ground is stable. Our ability to impose sanctions is limited because pretty much we only provide humanitarian aid anyway. But picking up on what Garry and Anne said, after four years of sort of bullyboy diplomacy by Trump, does Biden, is his hand forced towards some kind of activist response just to make the clear demarcation that America is back, and we care especially about the example that we're setting in the world?
Uriel Epshtein [00:14:41] I think those are two separate questions. So in other words, there's a question of what example are we setting in the world? And then there's a question of what sort of role, active role should we be playing with respect to specific situations around the globe? So in terms of the first question, I think the last four years have been an unequivocally terrible example for the world. And I mean, I think Anne and Garry have explained it thoroughly, but it's fascinating to just listen to the rhetoric coming out of Tatmadaw, the Myanmar military, around even before the coup d'etat, they were saying how the election was fraudulent, how they didn't know that the results could be relied upon and how essentially they were setting the ground for if and when Aung San Suu Kyi party won its landslide, which of course, it did, they could then say, well, that's a fraudulent victory and therefore we're going to be the true bearers of democracy by opposing it and deposing her as sort of an unfairly elected leader.
Harry Litman [00:15:38] Although perhaps you saw the country itself came in and did strong criminal sanctions because she illegally imported 10 walkie talkies. That's the Myanmar local response, apparently.
Uriel Epshtein [00:15:49] Yeah, I mean, exactly. I mean, it was entirely nonsensical in terms of the charges against her. I mean, and there are open questions as to what her culpability is with respect to the Rohingya genocide. But nevertheless, with respect to democracy, I think it's pretty clear, one, that the Myanmar military was clearly taking notes based on the Trumpian rhetoric in the US, and two they were actually also taking notes about how to discredit political opponents, right? I mean, it's basically the same playbook that Giuliani was using with respect to Hunter Biden. Of course, one failed miserably as a result of the fact that in the US we have these institutions, whereas the other, unfortunately, is likely to succeed because Myanmar doesn't have these institutions.
Harry Litman [00:16:30] That's a great point. And I think it may have been Anne again, who wrote that the real biggest victims of January 6th, you could say, are the dissidents or oppressed around the world. Because to the extent the United States looks itself like a quasi-Turkey, it actually disempowers those sorts of local movements. This is a good segue perhaps to China, which is the new nine hundred pound gorilla, to use a cliche on the block. He now comes into office, does Biden, with China at near parity as an economic superpower. We saw that the EU perhaps as fallout from Trump's ill treatment of them, recently signed a new broad economic agreement with China. So what's the sort of core challenge and how does it translate into a practical agenda for Biden and Blinken and Jake Sullivan to address China?
Anne Applebaum [00:17:35] The first big change that Biden can make in our policy towards China is to talk to our allies about China, and I mean our allies in Asia and our allies in Europe and our allies elsewhere. And to create a common trade policy, a common set of issues that we all speak about in one voice, and to leverage our strength and our alliances in order to create some common policies. I mean, I think it's now widely understood in a bipartisan way in both America and Europe that China's trade practices are a threat to all of us, their abuse of intellectual property law, for example, their sucking up of our data and so on. So that's now understood, but we don't have a common way of talking about it or addressing it. And so I'm hoping that the first thing that will happen is that the Biden administration creates a broader conversation around this so that there is one set of policies.
Uriel Epshtein [00:18:28] A resurrection of TPP, perhaps.
Harry Litman [00:18:32] Well, speaking of trade agreements, I mean, you have a sense of how big either symbolically or practically was this new agreement between the EU and China?
Garry Kasparov [00:18:44] I was one of the signatories protesting this agreement because it was a capitulation since Europe ignored not just human rights violations, but genocide. Uighur genocide. I think that's what's happening in the world without American leadership. And while we spend time talking about Myanmar and the military coup there, that's one of the regional threats to democracy, and it's again, we all have to condemn it. Though, as you pointed out, America had very little influence over Myanmar affairs. Then we mentioned China, but I think we should all look at Putin first, because I believe that when we look at the hotspots on the world map, whether it's Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, some of the conflicts in Africa, like Libya, you always find Putin's fingerprints. And therefore would be authoritarian leaders like Erdogan and Orbán, I think Putin's success as the authoritarian leader who successfully destroyed the feeble Russian democracy was just a north star. So why not? And we should also not forget that the four years of reckless foreign policy of the Trump administration were preceded by eight years of feckless foreign policy by Barack Obama.
Harry Litman [00:20:04] And feckless in what sense?
Garry Kasparov [00:20:06] So it's just reset with Russia. Let's start with this, though. Obama, it's out of naivete. For eight years, they have been desperately looking for common ground with Russia. Even after Russia invaded Crimea, annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine, then Secretary of State John Kerry had been desperately trying to find this elusive common ground with Russia in Syria. Putin eventually recognized that he could do whatever. I believe that Obama's weak foreign policy convinced Putin that he could go as far as interfering in US elections, and we should not be surprised because dictatorships all want to turn the world back to a dark past because their survival is threatened by the values of the free world epitomized by the United States. And that's why, you know, American retreat was a signal for them to fill this vacuum. No one likes to talk about the United States as a global policeman, but what has been happening over the last years, that's what to expect when there is no cop on the beat.
Harry Litman [00:21:05] Yeah, well, let's stick with this for a second. You're suggesting that Obama's naivete and Trump's corruption are but for causes of some of these grotesque abuses of human rights. So let's frame this up in the example of Alexei Navalny, who, as most people know, is the lead dissident. Putin tried to kill him, he survived a poisoning attempt. He went back very courageously to Russia, where, of course, he has been imprisoned. So if what you say is right, then it sounds like it may be within the United States can to actually reverse this, or maybe to take action to reverse the next one. So concretely, what should the United States be doing in response to this, and to prevent or deter future similar episodes?
Anne Applebaum [00:22:01] The least that we can do is to do what Navalny and his supporters have asked us to do. And what they've asked us to do is to sanction the oligarchs and the companies that are keeping Putin in power. And they've produced a long list of names, some of them very well known and famous, some who are resident or partly resident in Western countries. And they've asked us to stop the system by which wealthy Russians are taking money out of the country and laundering it into the in the West and then laundering it back into Russia or in which they're taking money out of the country and then enjoying the fruits of their theft, you know, in the south of France or in Miami. They're asking us to put a stop to that. And it's true that we have made steps in that direction. There are sanctions on Russia and on individual Russians and Russian companies already, they just have asked us to go further. And this seems to be something that the United States could do in coordination with Europeans, in coordination with Japan and Korea and others. This is a very concrete policy, it's what they've asked for, and it would send a very important signal to Russia and to others about how much corruption we are willing to tolerate.
Harry Litman [00:23:09] Let's follow up on that, specifically with respect to the distinctive characteristic here, which is sanction of the oligarchs. Why is that the right target, and what have we been doing wrong until now?
Garry Kasparov [00:23:25] Before we talk about sanctions and about individuals that belong to this list of the targeted sanctions, I think we have to discuss the strategy. Because debating the tactical shots, like picking this man or that man, just, you know, adding this organization or another one, it's not going to help us to oppose Vladimir Putin and to stop his hybrid war that he has launched against the free world. And I don't think we have a strategy yet, there's no agreement. So what is the goal of the free world while facing the open threat from Putin, who is not even hiding his intentions to spread chaos and to destroy the alliances like NATO or even the European Union, who has been buying favors, lobbies, politicians and, you know, even in case of Navalny we heard big statements. Condemnations, grave concerns. But as for actions? Yet to be demonstrated that the free world is ready to make any meaningful steps towards inevitable confrontation.
We have the head of the European foreign policy, Josef Borrell, visiting Moscow and asking Russian officials if he could meet Navalny. This is not the language mafia understands. Actually, they understand the language well, it's a language of weakness. Borrell's visit to Moscow had to be connected to his chance to see Navalny, that's it. Otherwise, I don't show up. No, we hear again the same story. We won't, we have to stop negative rhetoric and start a dialogue. Nonsense. You don't have any common values with the mafia state, Putin is a criminal. He's a dictator, and he's not hiding it anymore, and he believes that with his oil and gas, and politicians and prominent business people, he literally bought starting from Gerhard Schroeder and we can go down, I don't think this will be enough time in this conversation to mention all of them. You can feel safe, because talks are cheap, words are cheap. And as for the actions, I think Kremlin made a very simple calculation that they could survive this PR onslaught about Navalny, and at the end of the day, it will be business as usual.
And as for Biden's foreign policy, I have big hopes, but I don't understand why they gave up instantly the START treaty. So that's something that Russia definitely needed because Putin had no money for a new arms race. I'm in favor of doing that, but why'd you start by giving Putin exactly what he wanted instead of just trying to negotiate. And again, we have to hear, and not just from a press secretary, not even from Tony Blinken, we have to hear from Biden that America is there to restore its leadership of the free world, and to carry the torch of freedom. And point out at the enemies of the free world, starting with Vladimir Putin, and telling that America would not tolerate any violations, massive violations of human rights and ongoing attacks on American and European democracies. And meaningful sanctions will follow immediately. Unless Biden says it, it's loud and clear, I think Putin will just simply ignore it.
Uriel Epshtein [00:26:35] The point that Garry made in the very beginning, I think is absolutely critical. Right now, there is just an absence of proactive strategy. And in the absence of a proactive strategy, we have no choice but to be reactive. As a result, every action that a dictator like Putin takes gets responses about grave concerns and things of that nature, but they're not consistent. Meanwhile, Putin has a very clear strategy. For him, his international priority is chaos. If there's chaos in the Middle East, if there's chaos in Europe, if there's chaos internally in democratic nations, then that gives him more power, despite the fact that he holds a relatively weak hand, given his weak economy and outdated military and so forth. And so, actually another member of our board wrote a piece about this, I believe, in foreign affairs.
Lieutenant Colonel Alex Binmen, retired. He made, I think, a very cogent argument in support of what would amount to an international summit of democracies. In other words, free nations around the world need to come together and actually come up, not with a reactive statement about how terrible Putin's treatment of Navalny is, although certainly that would be a positive step, but more importantly, a positive statement about what things in the future they will not abide and what their priorities are with respect to worldwide or global democracy in some way, shape or form, and then stand by it. And then actually enforce it in some capacity, whether by sanctions or trade or...but most importantly, have some measure of a proactive vision rather than simply these kind of one off reactive statements that a whole host of dictatorships are kind of welcome to ignore.
Harry Litman [00:28:12] Yeah, I mean, it's a little bit like parenthood or at least those of us that are parents have learned. It's just key to A, be clear in what you're going to do and then B, follow through. But I just want to underscore the very interesting point that Uriel made, because I do think it's true. Everyone else here will know better, but that Russia is much weaker than it has been in the past. And its presence on the world stage, I think, really is owing to Putin's almost terrorist or certainly autocratic type strategy of sowing chaos and generally being vicious and oppressive at home. And it somehow has permitted him, certainly under Trump, to kind of punch above his weight relative to, say, a China which has much more of a serious hand that it's playing from now.
Uriel Epshtein [00:29:06] Just for comparison sake, Russia's entire economy is approximately the size of New York. That's it. It's entire, you know, this is a nation that we're talking about that the entire world is discussing, and their entire GDP is approximately similar to that of a single state in the US.
Harry Litman [00:29:22] Yeah, and going back to the EU, of course, it's not just our economic might among the top 10 in the world, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada. So certainly, as in terms of combined might it swamps Russia.
Anne Applebaum [00:29:35] Although I would add only that there is something special about Russia, and that is that Russia's entire foreign policy and its entire security services are very focused on our democracies and our media. Just because it's a weak economically country, just because it's cold and far away, that doesn't mean that there aren't very sophisticated people who have now dedicated themselves to undermining us. Not militarily, but using propaganda, using all the tactics that we all now know so well, and they are doing this not only in the United States but in every single democracy all over the world. It's not that they have a special power, but they should be of special concern to us. Garry alluded to the Obama administration's disinterest in Russia, and some of it really was disinterest. You know, Obama's attitude was Putin's like a bored teenager. It's a regional power. And that's true up to a point, except that it's a regional power that employs a lot of Secret Service agents who are focused on undermining our democracy. And so we need some kind of response to that, and we need it to be very vigorous, and very well thought through, and very rapid.
Harry Litman [00:30:47] It's a great point. And I mean, I think of Russia always as being very rich in human capital, even back to czarist days. Those sorts of accomplishments swamp their economic might.
[00:31:02] It's now time to take a moment for our sidebar feature, which explains some of the issues and relationships that are prominent in the news. Among President Biden's first flurry of executive orders was one addressing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. To explain exactly where it now stands and what might be coming, we are very pleased to welcome Tina Louise, whom many of you remember as Ginger on Gilligan's Island and in fact, with the recent death of Mary Wells, she's the last surviving member of that cast. But she was also a world renowned stage screen and TV actress, and today she is a very active advocate for children's literacy. So I give you Tina Louise, explaining the current state of play with DACA.
Tina Louise [00:32:01] On his first day in office, President Biden signed a memorandum for the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security ordering them to take all appropriate actions to preserve and fortify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. DACA is an Obama-era policy that provides temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to certain young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. In 2017, the Trump administration terminated DACA, resulting in legal challenges and a June 2020 Supreme Court ruling restoring the policy because the administration had failed to follow federal administrative guidelines in dismantling it. Many DACA recipients know no home other than the United States, but DACA doesn't and can't confer a permanent right to live and work in this country. Permanent, lawful status and a path to citizenship for DACA recipients can only be provided by Congress. The Biden administration has also already unveiled proposed legislation that, if enacted, would comprehensively overhaul U.S. immigration laws and would, among many other things, provide current DACA recipients an immediate opportunity to apply for permanent residency. For Talking Feds, I'm Tina Louise.
Harry Litman [00:33:24] Thank you very much Tina Louise, for explaining the state of play with DACA for us. And I just want to say it was great to hear your voice, which was so reminiscent to me from long ago watching of Gilligan's Island.
So a couple of you have mentioned Obama's naiveté or maybe lack of interest in certain points, and we were told that Biden chafed a bit as vice president. He's the former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, he considers himself an expert on foreign policy. He wanted to go stronger in many instances. And now he's in charge, and we're told that he wants to pursue a foreign policy that is good for the US middle class. And I just wonder if you guys have a sense of what that portends, and whether it dovetails well with the kinds of goals that Renewed Democracy Initiative, for example, champions.
Anne Applebaum [00:34:30] So that idea that American democracy should be good for the middle class comes, I believe, from Jake Sullivan, who's the national security adviser and who ran a big project in the years that he was in academia looking at precisely this question, how do we bring in the middle class? And partly it is about bringing people into the conversation. So foreign policy has been for a long time the realm of experts and people who work in think tanks in Washington. And I think there will be some effort to talk about it in a way that relates to ordinary people. Also to focus on the international institutions that preserve the rules and regulation of commerce, revive those. Some of those have also deteriorated in the Trump era, because those do bring direct benefits to ordinary Americans and explaining that to them and promoting that idea in Nebraska and Wisconsin as well as in Washington, D.C. As I understand it, that's the crux of the idea.
Garry Kasparov [00:35:26] Yeah, defending global system of trade and security will benefit American middle class. America is the biggest economy in the world. You know, it's the largest trading power. And, of course, you know, having normal relations with different trading blocs helps America and helps American middle class. And to the country, just the rise of dictatorships that now have means and tools to interfere with American political life, it inevitably hurts the middle class because it spreads corruption, it spreads uncertainty. And I think that the current political crisis in the United States, which is very much a result of foreign interference, it hurts American middle class, as every American.
Uriel Epshtein [00:36:07] I've always thought that one of the big failures of the 90s and early 2000s was our inability or the nation's inability to explain the value of these free trade agreements, of increasing international democratization and so forth. In other words, the failures of free trade where you did have job displacement and other things, those failures were incredibly loud. They were self-evident, but the successes were very quiet and people ended up taking them for granted. And so we need to do a much better job of not just combating some of those failures, but also making clear what the successes are, and what the counterfactual would have been, right? I mean, if these policies hadn't been pursued on an international stage, what would the world look like for the American middle class? What jobs wouldn't have existed had it not been for X, Y or Z trade agreement?
Harry Litman [00:37:00] I think we've time for one question before our Five Words or Fewer, and I want to pick up on what you said about our reactive versus proactive foreign policy. We've identified the hotspots and the kind of challenges around the world that Biden has to react to. But if you were advising him, would you counsel something big and new and bold, sort of Nixon in China bold? Should anything like that be in the cards, and if you had his ear, what would you be recommending?
Garry Kasparov [00:37:32] I can add personal advice to President Biden, he's 78, most likely a one-term president. He definitely thinks about his place in history. And you look around the world, you look at American challenges, I'm sure he can do a great job in many places. But if he thinks about the place in history, look at Russia. I think there's a very good chance that President Biden can politically outlive dictator Putin, and that will definitely secure Biden's place among the greatest presidents of the United States who accomplished foreign policy victories.
Uriel Epshtein [00:38:05] I would add that a big push to try to not just undo some of the damage that occurred internationally under the last four years, but more importantly, to proactively change the dynamic whereby we bring together global democracies into a single summit where we actively include those countries that meet certain democratic criteria and exclude those that don't and pursue global policies that promote and that defend those types of democratic norms on the world stage. I think that would actually be a huge success, and it's something that, quite frankly I've been surprised, hasn't been prioritized in previous administrations.
Anne Applebaum [00:38:47] So I would just reemphasize what I said before, which is that bringing together the democracies of the world in order to fix or change the problems that afflict all of our democracies. Social media, the Internet, climate change, kleptocracy. Refocusing on those problems, making democracy something attractive and dynamic that's moving forward and not something that, as Garey says, is constantly on the defense. This would be a game changer.
Harry Litman [00:39:15] Got it. And I'll just add to the list, I think, unless anyone disagrees, state sponsored terrorism, where just seems we've been flailing and doing the same thing since the authorization to use military force in 2001. So maybe there's some real inroads he could make again with this approach, that is the common theme I'm hearing from all three of you of not simply placating, not simply being the big brother again to the EU and other democracies, but to really treat them as partners. All right, we have a couple minutes left for our Five Words or Fewer feature. Our question today comes from B. S. This has been a challenge for me, name wise, all episode. But it is this: From the standpoint of US foreign policy, would the conviction of Donald Trump in next week's impeachment trial be a good thing or a bad thing?
Garry Kasparov [00:40:15] Good thing.
Anne Applebaum [00:40:17] Good thing, because it shows we're serious about rule of law.
Uriel Epshtein [00:40:20] Unambiguously a good thing. It will empower anti-corruption activist globally.
Harry Litman [00:40:25] Wow. Each answer successively longer. I'm going to go back to the rules. Good American shows resolve for democracy.
Thank you very much to Anne, Garry and Uriel, and thank you very much, listeners, for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts, and please take a moment to rate and review this podcast. You can follow us on Twitter @TalkingFedsPod , to find out about future episodes and other Feds-related content. You can check us out on the web, talkingfeds.com , where we have full episode transcripts. And you can look to see our latest offerings on Patreon, where we post discussions about special topics exclusively for supporters. And these aren't outtakes or simply ad-free episodes, though we do have those there, but really original one on one discussions. Just in the last couple of days, we've posted discussions on the GameStop phenomenon with Kevin Roose, The New York Times reporter, and on the confirmation of Alejandro Mayorkas and what it portends from Leon Rodriguez, who worked very closely with him for years at the Department of Homeland Security, and in fact succeeded him as the director of the Immigration Service. So check those out and the many other discussions that you'll find, you can just look to see what they are and then decide if you'd like to subscribe.
Submit your questions to questions@talkingfeds.com , whether it's for Five Words or Fewer or general questions about the inner workings of the legal system for our Sidebar segments. Thanks for tuning in, and don't worry: as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Jennifer Bassett and Rebecca Lowe Patton. Our editor is Justin Wright. David Lieberman and Rosie Dawn Griffin are our contributing writers. Production assistance by Matt McArdle. Our consulting producer is Andrea Carla Michaels. Thanks very much to Tina Louise for explaining the current state of play with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program. Our gratitude, as always, goes out to the amazing Philip Glass, who graciously lets us use his music. Talking Feds is a production of Dalito, LLC. I'm Harry Litman, see you next time.
