Stephen Kotkin: China, Russia, And American Freedom | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefing

welcome to the Hoover virtual policy briefing series I'm Tom Gilligan director of the Hoover Institution the principles of individual economic and political freedom private enterprise and limited representative government were fundamental to the vision of our founder Herbert Hoover and remain as compelling today as it were more than a century ago a preeminent research center the institution has remained steadfast in its commitment to funny solutions grounded in history data and logic to to the many difficult challenges we face the dissemination of our work has led to significant impacts on important public policy initiatives here and around the world these briefings provide an opportunity to hear directly from some of our distinguished scholars on a wide range of domestic and international issues thank you for joining us today and I hope you benefit from the discussion as a reminder we will be taking questions and I encourage you to submit yours using the Q&A button located at the bottom of your screen today's discussion is with Steven kotkin on China Russia and American freedom steven is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of history and international affairs at Princeton University in addition to conducting research and the Hoover Library and Archives for three decades he is also founder of Princeton's global history initiative his work encompasses geopolitics and authoritarian regimes both in current times and throughout history Steven welcome welcome and thanks for joining us today thank you for the honor of the invitation great to be here tom great we start with China suddenly everybody's discovered that China represents a threat to US freedom but let's back up a little bit when did China not why did China not liberalize politically politically while it went through a very aggressive plan of liberalizing economically aftermath so China never promised that it would liberalize politically we promised it on their behalf it was an illusion on our part communist regimes even when the Zombies ideologically retain the Leninist structure which is a single party monopoly throughout all institutions the problem with this is you cannot be half communist you're either communist or not when they begin to liberalize politically what they discover is that people don't want to remain inside a single party to debate some people want to criticize the party and some people want to form their own political party and so political liberalisation under communism turns out to be a form of self liquidation we saw that in Hungary in 1956 we saw that in Czechoslovakia Prague Spring in 1968 we saw that with Gorbachev Soviet Union we get fooled because they can liberalize the economy maybe the market dynamism they need the GDP growth they need the job creation that private sector activity gives them but then they continue to keep a tight hold politically that Communist Party monopoly so they never liberalize economically politically simultaneously because if they do they cease to exist how resilient is the Chinese Communist Party rule today and if it were to uh in somehow what would replace it all authoritarian regimes can survive until there's an alternative to them they can rule very poorly they can starve their people they can fail across the board on issues but they can muddle through and survive by suppressing political alternatives so they don't need to be resilient in the same way as a democratic regime needs to be they just need to suppress political alternatives which the Chinese communist regime is very good at mm-hmm I would say though that there is an end game for a communist regimes which we've seen globally it is a right-wing authoritarian xenophobic nationalism that's what we see in Russia with the Putin regime it's what we see in Belarus with Lukashenko's regime we have it throughout Central Asia we have a version of it in Hungary a version of an in Poland we had a version of it in Serbia and so we're now seeing inside the Chinese Communist Party this move towards hardline authoritarian nativist xenophobic nationalism it's already growing inside the framework of the part the challenge for the Chinese Communist Party they might be happy to have a right-wing authoritarian xenophobic nationalist regime they might be fine with that but to get there they have to go through something called Gorbachev mm-hmm that's the stage they don't want to see because that's the collapse and implosion potential so that's why they're stuck they're stuck refusing to liberalize politically because they don't want to go through that Gorbachev stage to get out to the other side which is the Putin stage this hybrid nature who the Chinese communist regime you'll also notice Tom that even though they liberalize economically it's not a linear process they also get worried because people grow rich entrepreneurs dynamism in the society and the economy create alternative sources of power people have their own wealth and they want to make their own decisions and so the Communist Party is threatened by the very economic liberalisation that it needs for the growth and the job creation so we see opening the economy and then we see strangulation of the private economy dancer communist party bosses into private sector companies they close off some of the funding for the private sector and push the funding towards the state-owned enterprises that they control better and then they need a job creation again and so then they open a little bit more again the economic side but the political side if they open up it's suicide Stephen some people say that America's confrontation is with the Chinese Communist Party and not with the Chinese people do you agree with that delineation no I don't the Chinese Communist Party is a very nasty regime and it is the regime that we are confronted with today at the same time the rise of China is a long-term prospect we will be dealing with the dynamism of Chinese society and economy long after that Chinese communist regime is gone we have to learn to compete with China and compete effectively with China independent of what regime might be there China is a remarkable civilization it's incredible what China has achieved through millennia and so the idea that it's just the regime is comforting but in fact the challenge is much bigger and we have to focus on that long term Steven we have a question from Michael he says that the CCP doesn't seem to be able to keep their fingers out of the private sector he refers to Hong Kong in short in the short and short medium and long run can they really compete with democratic capitalist states like the us if we don't undermine ourselves they cannot meet us we're the only ones who can beat us if we fail to invest in our human capital in our infrastructure in good governance in reinventing our alliances if we fail to reinvest in our strengths then they have a chance mm-hmm but if we become an example again and we regain our mojo and we invest in ourselves I would not bet on anybody else yeah we ask you know Steven are we in a new Cold War with China should we be in a cold war with China and what should US policy be towards China we are in a new cold war with China even though we're still debating it and and and the reason we're in a new Cold War with China is because it's a necessary move not a misunderstanding there's a fundamental clash of state interests and even more fundamentally there's a clash of values and so that's not a misunderstanding and that's not going away when we had the first cold war with the Soviet Union it took us a long time to admit that we were in a cold war almost through the invasion by North Korea of South Korea we were still debating whether we were in a cold war or whether there was a misunderstanding here enough we are in a cold war and it's the right thing to do and moreover a cold war is better than a hot war the reason we did a cold war was not to fight World War 3 but to compete in ways that we could succeed and contain Soviet expansionism that same compete and be ourselves and when without fighting the third world war that's why we're in a new Cold War with China it has begun already and we need to not only realize that but fight it properly fight and strategically fight it smartly mm-hmm and with and how does one do that what's the smart policy towards China now we have three pillars in our debate about China policy in the US the first of the third well let's call it a triad the first part of the triad is China's rise is inevitable okay let's just surrender that's a shorthand description of what I would call the Obama administration's policy these are Beach I'm late in the game they woke up and they started talking awkwardly about a pivot to Asia as if we weren't in Asia already and then they ran out of time but the second triad is let's go to war a China is a threat and we need to prepare for war with China let's call that the John Bolton position John Bolton never met a war he didn't like I don't think America would benefit from going to war with China so I don't think war just like I don't think surrender is a good option the third part of the triad of the debate that we're having domestically about China policy is what we call coevolution or win-win this is usually associated with Henry Kissinger and Kissinger is right we have to learn how to live with China the problem however is when you get into the details it's not clear what the issues are for the win-win for example 5g technology either you would adopt the Chinese system or you adopt the Western system there's really no middle ground there's no win-win there it's binary in South China Sea either there's freedom of navigation or there is no freedom of navigation right so it's not clear where the accommodation ends in in a so-called win-win scenario however living with China is correct so what I like to talk about is the old Reagan playbook the old Reagan playbook which gets forgotten and needs to be dusted off time and time again it's it's the simplicity of it is where its power comes from and it's the following strength plus diplomacy right strength which gives you leverage and negotiation it's what George Shultz has been talking about it Hoover since you left the Reagan administration mm-hmm you have to be strong when you go into negotiation but you also have to negotiate caucus nests and strength are not ends in themselves you have to be ready to pocket the concessions when your strength works moreover diplomacy without leverage diplomacy without strength also doesn't work so we need to get a State Department back it needs to be reinvented and we need to invest in our diplomacy but we also need to invest in deterrence and recapture deterrence not for deterrence sake but as I said for the negotiation end of the reagan playbook plus diplomacy strength plus negotiation that's the playbook on China yeah what before we leave China let's just ask very specific questions Hong Kong and Taiwan Michael asks a question is a Chinese invasion and reintegration of Taiwan inevitable I'll further that by asking is it inevitable that Hong Kong be subsumed entirely within the rubric above the rules of mainland China no it's not inevitable and we can do something about it and we need a smarter policy and we need a public discussion about what's at stake so when you look over China's challenges they had six challenges around their periphery Manchuria in a Mongolia Shin Jang where we have the concentration camps Tibet those are for them those are predominantly ethnic challenges such to China's war Manchuria was overcome just by Han Chinese flooding it Inner Mongolia was overcome by Han Chinese settlers flooding it shinjang is now being so-called pacified with these concentration camps and Tibet of course also is effectively in luck those are all significant challenges to the regime in Beijing but far more significant challenges are not the ethnic one but the political ones Bangkok and Taiwan and we need to understand that we can play a role here Taiwan was supposed to become politically integrated with China once they got economically integrated it was a version it was a version of our own delusion our delusion was if we integrate China economically it reforms and becomes more like us politically China's delusion was if we integrate Taiwan economically they'll want to become part of China politically but of course the Taiwanese have moved farther and farther away from identification with the Chinese regime on the mainland this is especially true for the younger generation so the status quo from the point of view of Beijing has failed the status quo pretending they're not independent when they are de facto independent that has failed because the Taiwan is drifting farther away so we need to be very concerned about actions that Xi Jinping's regime might take these are V Taiwan it's not an amphibious invasion across the strait it is more possibly an economic collapse where they use their economic leverage they use the economic integration to force Taiwan to its knees and then they say they're intervening militarily to rescue the Taiwanese people from the economic collapse that the mainlanders have themselves perpetrating that's the kind of stuff I worry about we need to be talking about what's America's role and commitment there with Hong Kong we have granted them special status now the Chinese communist regime in Beijing is violating its own agreement of one country two systems in imposing this external security law yeah we shouldn't remove the status the special status of komm because that only achieves the goal that Beijing has which is to eliminate the one country two systems and just make it one country one system we should be punishing Beijing not punishing Hong Kong for what they're doing in Hong Kong right now yeah Stephen last question on China I was gonna move on but this question is just to keen not to ask it's piss from lei says dear doctor Kotkin huge fan here has a historian have you ever met and have you ever seen or met and the illiberal superpower as strong as China China not only has a huge GDP it has also developed a totalitarian regime that appears to accommodate technological development at a Marik radicand dynamic society have you ever seen anything like that in history before no we haven't that's an excellent point this is the wealthiest and most powerful authoritarian regime we've known in history and usually authoritarian regimes don't get this rich usually we don't have opaque authoritarian regimes that accumulate this much wealth and power usually they undermine themselves but at the same time Tom let's remember that there's never been a liberal constitutional rule of law Republic that has been as powerful as the United States is in world history actually so just as China is unprecedented in its power so is the United States and we're early in this contest and we have tremendous levers on our side and we're the only ones who could defeat ourselves yeah Stephen let's move on to Russia before we do that I want to remind everybody that I'm Tom Gilligan and this is the Hoover Institution virtual policy briefing with Steven Kotkin many people say that rush on like China is a declining power is that true is Russia really a declining power yes they are a declining power they're a declining power with a UN Security Council veto they're a declining power with one of the two biggest nuclear arsenals in the mmm-hmm they're declining power with a geography that puts them in Europe the Middle East and the Far East simultaneously so they're a declining power certainly in economic terms the eleventh or the 12th or the 13th biggest economy and nominal GDP depending how you measure but however they're formidable in the kind of levers of power that they have most of which are historical legacies that they inherited from the Soviet Union Russian Empire but so the decline is real but the power is also real mm-hmm what let's talk just briefly about us-russia relations why why do they appear to be so bad why is there so much tension and how do you see US Russia relations evolving in the near term once again this is not a misunderstanding people keep telling me that you know we just need to talk to them we just need to understand them better we just need you know the previous administration was bad we're smarter we'll reset Russia relations will do a better job we'll come to and understand in fact there's a fundamental clash of state interests and even bigger than that there's a fundamental clash of values with Russia the highest u.s. value is freedom often understood as freedom from the state the highest value in Russia is the state you couldn't have more diametrically opposed value systems there so the bad relations are not an accident they're not a misunderstanding having said that we can manage the differences better just because you have differences doesn't mean you have to have confrontation all the time right managing difference is called diplomacy once again it's the strength plus the negotiation you revive the deterrence you show that you can punish bad behavior but at the same time you have a negotiation process so that you can reward behavior modification and so this strength plus diplomacy applies to most of our relationships but they're fundamentally because we differ in state interests and in values and so we're never gonna be you know in a place where there are a line esses airily but we can still be less confrontational with them by applying the strength diplomacy approach got it before we turn to the u.s. there are several questions here David Lenora and Paul basically asked your opinion about the Trump administration policies towards China and Russia are they what they should be and another David asked do you think President Biden's policies towards China and Russia would be different and if so how unfortunately I don't think the Trump administration has a policy but towards China and Russia hmm it has individuals on different sides of the debate who have a lot of infighting and it has a president who can't really make up his mind and doesn't follow through on some of the statements he makes what you have are good instincts the instincts meaning we have to do deals even with our adversaries but you also have let's say improper follow-through or inability to follow through and close those deals to American advantage right we're not looking for deals just for deals sake we're looking for deals that support American interests right as far as the Democratic Party but there's no evidence right now of a sophisticated superior China or Russia policy in democratic circles let's remember they were in power only four years ago and things weren't so rosy then and so they they have some thinking to do if they want to claim to have a superior policy either on Russia or on China and they don't have much time if they plan on using the power that they may inherit depending what happens in November so as a society we we need to root any policy Lisa V China and Russia in a broad consensus of the population we live in a democracy policy just doesn't come from a really brilliant paper at Brookings Institution or at AEI let alone Hoover policy comes from your ability to articulate it to explain it to the American people and to get a bipartisan consensus to implement it because the American people are behind it and and that's what we did for example under President Reagan and so policy is bigger than just an administration it's a societal level challenge and it involves a lot more work than just but the policy papers were seeing from the Democratic side right now don't necessarily inspire tremendous confidence even as we see floundering in the Trump administration got it I want to remind everybody you're listening to Hoover's senior fellow Steven Kotkin you can find more research by Hoover fellows at our website Hoover org let's turn to our own country now Steven and you know we're talking the other day and you made an interesting comment I'm gonna I'm gonna try to paraphrase it and let you kind of elaborate on it you said heretofore if one wanted to study malice philosophy you had to learn Chinese language and read the the writings and the books that were written by the Chinese people and mouse thoughts you've been said something like now Americans but can learn it by just observing what's going on in the streets of our country okay did I get that kind of right in ku can you elaborate on what you were trying to say when you told me that yes I used the study struggle sessions and reeducation camps and all the rest when I went to the Hoover Library and archive now I just either turn on the television or I participate in campus hmm there are some real issues that need to be addressed in American society the issues that are being raised are not fake issues they're real issues the question is how do we address them we need to engage we can't be afraid to engage the key however is on what terms do we engage on these difficult necessary issues let's take the question of diversity right where we work we hear a lot about the need to be diverse and to take diversity into account the problem with this discussion for me is that everything is diverse except the category diversity itself the category diversity is a kind of imposition of one understanding and many other ways to understand diversity are out of balance so in my view we need to open up that category and we need to make diversity itself diverse so just to clarify Stephen to make sure better sense you're saying you're saying and I want to put words in your mouth you're saying the current understanding of diversity has this being used in the debate has to do with rate racial and ethnic diversity there are other types of diversity like viewpoint diversity that are neglected in that conversation am I getting that right that's exactly right this is not a displacement this is not an either/or I'm not trying to force out other definitions of diversity I'm trying to open up the term so when we admit military veterans through the campus people who've served in our armed services and they come to a college campus they have very different life experiences and they bring very different perspectives and that diversifies our campuses and once again this is not at the expense of other understandings of diversity we're not trying to say that our understanding of diversity needs to trump the other ones we're trying to say let's take diversity seriously and let's open up the category there lots of other categories here that we need to also open up inclusion for example we hear a lot about how we need to be more inclusive on our campuses mm-hmm well we just finished at Princeton University rejecting almost 40,000 students in the admissions process admitting only about a thousand and change for the coming year so I don't understand how that's inclusive to me it looks like we're in elitist institution and we're exclusive when we hire faculty we get a hundred two hundred applications but we don't consider most of them worthy of being hired or our institution and that once we hire the person we talk about inclusiveness so for me the category inclusiveness has to be opened up and I want to talk about excellence because we're not admitting just anybody we're not hiring just anybody we're an elite institution and we shouldn't pretend otherwise and so let's open up inclusiveness let's open up the other categories change for example everybody's now talking about how we need change they're not actually talking about change they're talking about social engineering they're talking about revolution so I favor change I'm in favor of change but I'm in favor of change which takes account of tradition which is gradual and consensual and therefore legitimate which doesn't produce perverse and unintended consequences right the founding of conservatism is essentially traced to Edmund Burke who reacted to the French Revolutions extremism but Burke was not against change he was in favor of change once again within traditions consensually done without perverse and unintended consequences so if we're going to argue about change we're actually arguing about social engineering so let's be careful the terms on which we're going to engage in this debate I could go there are many other categories being used but I think you get the message yeah let me ask you the following question what do you make the current civil unrest resulting from George Floyd's death and I guess I want to ask you am you study this Soviet or the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution extensively disini what's different and what's the same about what's going on the United States and these other two revolutions of the 20th century like well Americans I was sickened to see what happened to George Floyd and I'm hoping that justice is done but to remedy what is horrible wrong he's not the only example there are other examples that we could also mention and so when I see people protesting because that happens I understand them and peaceful protest is written into our Constitution and we do not want to see ourselves whereby we act like those powers we're in competition with when George Kennan wrote the long telegram in 1946 which eventually culminated in the policy of containment of the Soviet Union his last paragraph was very important in that long telegram of 1946 and he said we cannot fight our adversary using our adversaries methods and become like our adversary because that would be defeat not victory same thing with us we cannot use violent force against peaceful protests and end up looking like pictures from Hong Kong where the Chinese Communist Party is repressing peaceful protests or pictures from Tehran where the Iranian mullahs are oppressing let's remember that we're a gigantic diverse society we go from the far left to the far right that's fine as far as I'm concerned we're able to debate those things our instant tutions however are really strong and we need to use our institutions to find consensus on difficult issues we're not in a revolutionary situation like Russia and China because our institutions are much stronger revolutions happen when the state is hollowed out when the state has internally eroded or been corroded and is easy to push over we have peaceful protest unfortunately sometimes not peaceful protests which I don't support but when we have peaceful protest it's not a sign of a revolutionary situation no matter how loud it is no matter how much it can alarm people it's just something which is a normal part of a democratic society we would be more concerned if we were at a hollow state hollow and failing institutions if we didn't have a judiciary anymore if we didn't have a civil service if we didn't have elected representatives at the local level in addition to the federal level we have will that we're disappointed in how our institutions function we know that they're not functioning as well as they should we're looking through this pandemic where we've not covered ourselves in glory but those institutions are still strong and the remedy lies in those institutions and that's the difference between the Russia China revolutionary situations and where we are in America yeah Stephen read read kind of ask a question that pushes back on your notion of Burkean change he says what does it mean to change within traditions when traditions themselves are often the problem and could you address this question within the context of what we're seeing with respect to the treatment of statues and other types of symbols that possibly been a raid or memorialize or in some sense historicize the Civil War period in America yeah Oliver very difficult but important questions for us to consider so let's let's go sideways they'll in on this let's take inequality for a second mm-hmm many people think that inequality is perhaps the defining issue or one of the defining issues in our society today what's happened on the conservative side not all but some have argued that inequality is a false issue it doesn't really exist or if it does exist it's not really important and I don't agree with that what that does is it hands the inequality issue over to the left side of the political spectrum and it's a very galvanizing issue and moreover it's a real problem Milton Friedman if you go on YouTube and Google Milton Friedman or look up Milton Friedman on any video you'll see that he spoke quite often and eloquently about inequality of course he did not speak about inequality of outcome he spoke about inequality of opportunity you cannot achieve an equality of outcome if you try to achieve an equality of outcome you'll fail and you'll produce perverse and unintended consequences but inequality of opportunity is a real challenge and we need to do much much better on it and so that's an issue we need to seize and we need to talk about it we need to come up with policies around inequality of opportunity that's an issue that needs to be owned so when I talk about change and change within tradition it's not a passive approach moreover it can be quite daring in its approach you know as far as your question about statues a very fraught issue if you look over historical experience most statues in history have been destroyed very few statues have survived over time it's usually because a new group comes to power or a new empire is formed or a new civilization displaces a pre civilization and they smash or destroy or take down the previous cultural symbols in order to put their own this happens time again sometimes they just want the bronze and they melt things down just for the value of the materials but usually it's a displacement of cultural symbols I think we should be much more cautious and humble about this we put up statues for a few reasons one is veneration so for example George Washington he owned slaves who we put up statues because George Washington owned slaves is that what we're venerating no we put up George Washington statues because he was our first president and a successful president and moreover he was a general in the Revolutionary War that made our country possible do we know that he owned slaves of course we do we have an open society and that information is freely available and freely circulates even if your teacher doesn't tell you you can still discover the information at Washington owned slaves so we don't venerate every aspect of a person and we don't venerate everything that they did all their behavior but we do venerate certain aspects and certainly another reason we put up statues is for reconciliation when we've had differences when we've had disputes that even rise to the level of civil war it's okay to put up statues that have as the purpose reconciliation moreover it's okay to put up statues that originally were designed for a different purpose for veneration but we can repurpose them for reconciliation I think that monuments that exist from the past are you jubal as teaching moments you can put up a monument next to one that people feel is controversial you can put them monument of one of George Washington's slaves next to his own monument because he did on slaves and that is part of our history what we saw in Richmond Virginia was very interesting Tom here goes right to your point about the Confederacy there's a gigantic statue of Robert Ely general it was too big to pull down and so the protesters who protested the presence of robert e lee's statue in richmond they instead wrote graffiti on the statue they wrote explanatory messages or signs on the statue ironically this is exactly what a commission in virginia had recommended for Confederate era or post Confederate era statues dealing with the Confederacy to contextualize them to explain them to put up these kinds of signs or or alternative monuments next to them and so I think that that's one way that we can manage we can repurpose statues for reconciliation purposes and also for explanatory purposes you know you can't uphold values with methods that contradict those values they want to tear down a statue that doesn't live up to your values the process of tearing down also doesn't live up to those values right that just can be replaced sometimes they need to be removed sometimes they need to be relocated but the methods of doing that when they're non-consensual and when they're potentially violent those methods can be in contradiction to the values that are being exposed while you're saying you needed to remove them to uphold those values yeah a little bit more cautious but I'm not against revisiting monuments and statues that's a conversation we as a strong nation can engage yeah we can let me end even with just a couple questions that kind of relates to your last point which is about the method for the removal of statues Gregg asks is the expansion of statue toppling to abolitionist and Union generals who destroy the Confederacy a sign of strong institutions there's obviously a width of sarcasm that question it seems this is almost a Jacobin like should we not be concerned about this and then Walter asked the question are we witnessing the collapse of Western civilization once again I'm not afraid we live in a large and diverse society and the far left just like the far right will be a part of our society what's the strength in our society is the middle that's where the American people are and that's where the political parties ought to be you know the Jacobins we see them in action now they're not a majority of the country and they don't have the power to overturn our institutions and so we need to of course rule of law uphold the law in all forms at the same time we shouldn't be afraid we're much stronger than we give ourselves credit to be you know this is the way to deal with the situation should we not read the ancient Greeks should we give up all of the ancient Greeks completely is there nothing of value in the ancient Greeks after all they practice slavery in Athens should we have should we now be compelled to give up everything mm-hmm not just one thing but everything because Athens practiced slavery right that's the proposition that's before us we can't do that we give up constitutional order and rule of law because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves of course not however should we use constitutional order and rule of law to manage debates about the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves yes right one of the things about slavery and one of the things about human rights and about civil rights and one of the things about the controversy we have now is the very institutions that were born when there was slavery are the institutions where we need to appeal to in rectifying past wrongs like slavery or whatever it might be the beauty of the 18th century revolution is that had this category citizen a category citizen didn't include every American who was living on the territory at the time it didn't include Native Americans it didn't include the slaves imported against their will from Africa it didn't include women it didn't include a lot of men who didn't own property however over time through struggle the category citizen was expanded and the 18th century Revolution which originated in these exclusions ended up to be very inclusive over time and for example slaves could be emancipated and they could get the right to vote it was late too late and it was after tremendous struggle and we're still dealing with it because some people feel and they're correct that in many communities because they're black they have problems in being able to register to vote this problem exists nonetheless the category citizen and expand to include them it included women women properly got the right to vote once again late in the game and once again after tremendous struggle and once again it's not always perfect but that's the beauty of the 18th century system that we are privileged to be a part of it enables more inclusiveness over time and its values and institutions are the very ones we need to use to correct those in justices that are real in our society that we see living out today that's the difference between us and authoritarian regimes Stephen thanks for the discussion it was wonderful thanks for joining us as my pleasure we'll see you again soon I bet we are taking hiatus next week for the Independence Day holiday but we will be back on Tuesday July 7th at 11 a.m. Pacific time 2 p.m. Easter time with Shelby still who will be talking about race in America Shelby is the Robert J and marry me Oscars senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and he's written extensively on race in American society and the consequences of contemporary social problems on race relations where concern too many awards and accolades our discussion with Shelby will be very timely and I look forward to seeing you then until then I want to wish you a very happy and healthy 4th of July weekend please stay safe and I look forward to seeing you in a couple weeks [Music]

Channel: Hoover Institution

Views: 124,357

Keywords: China, Russia, American Freedom, COVID-19

Id: DqdNzY2TZCE

Length: 47min 46sec (2866 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 25 2020