#10 Part II: Exploring Chinese Grand Strategy in the 21st Century feat. Dr. William Norris and Ben Zimmer

In this two-part episode, Dr. William Norris, an Associate Professor at Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service and head of its Chinese studies concentration, shares an overview of the historical and political dynamics of China's grand strategy from the Cultural Revolution to the present day. A friend of Sherman's and former Bush School classmate Ben Zimmer joins us in a thoughtful, lively conversation on one of the most important contemporary topics facing America and the world.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Here on episode 10, part two, we continue with our lively discussion with Dr. Norris and my classmate Ben Zimmer. If you haven't already, make sure you take a listen to part one and come join us as we continue an amazing conversation about one of the most important aspects of American foreign policy moving forward here in the 21st century. Let's pick it up from where we left off at the end of part one. Here we go. Patriotism, faith, national unity, education, fiscal responsibility, civility, the values that define America. Fascinating stories and talks from American-loving patriots dedicate to preserving freedom, opportunity, and justice. Welcome to the Friends and Fellow Citizens Populist. So, Dr. Norris and Ben, we left off part one talking about the Chinese foreign policy strategy and vision under Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. I want to bring up one quick point about the most favored nation status. That has actually been brought into question in Congress. I recently saw a bill from one of the senators that proposes a rethinking of this most nation most favored nation status. I thought that was really interesting, and that'll be a unique aspect to track in Congress. What essentially allows is that it allows Congress to have the final say in determining whether or not China should have favored nation status. This has often been reinstated by the president, at least before this introduction of the bill. Very cool stuff. Very interesting. And uh that's gonna be a big part, I think, for future members of Congress. As we welcome the freshman members and any new members in the Senate, these are some of the matters that they will have to take on. We'll see how that progress goes with that bill and similar legislation. I want to turn now to China in the 2010s. This is the time when the Obama administration takes over on January 20th, 2009, and there's this Obama's pivot to Asia strategy, where essentially allows a kind of a realignment of US-China relations at a diplomatic level, essentially saying that there are particular areas of differences between the United States and China, notably on intellectual property, on human rights for sure. But then there are other channels that the Obama administration was trying to revitalize and trying to make sense of so that there could be a prospect of cooperation on issues like climate change, on trade, and other issues. So, Dr. Norris, walk us through an overview of where China is going as it proceeds into the 2010s after the financial crisis. Again, there's so many moving parts here. We certainly don't need to cover every single aspect. There's a lot of different factors that come into play. But just give us an overview of where China is going during this time.

SPEAKER_02 3:17

I think you can sort of summarize it as there's an increasing appetite to have the region and the rest of the world give deference to Chinese interests, particularly um in their region, but also more broadly on the world stage. Uh and the the sense in China is that this is just right. I mean, that's the right thing to do. China's power is is now uh at the stage where it deserves that deference and that it deserves to have that um deference paid to its preferences and its strategic interests. Um and so I think that's that's kind of the bumper sticker that I would that I would suggest to interpret. The Spratly Islands, uh, China says, listen, we've been claiming these islands uh consistently for quite some time. We haven't expanded our claims. This is what you'll hear from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The only thing that's different now is we can enforce those claims in a way that previously we didn't have the capabilities to enforce. Uh and so when we go about and enforce those claims, the rest of the region and the world shouldn't be so surprised because we're being very consistent with what we've claimed all along. That's the line of logic or reasoning that you'll hear coming out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Um so I think that what's interesting is uh is there's not a lot of credence given or uh or empathy uh for the region's interpretations of China's activities. So there's sort of there's a rationale and a there's a correct answer that comes out of uh Beijing that says this is why we're doing what we're doing, and everybody else needs to learn to deal with it. Uh and there's an unwillingness to kind of entertain notions that, well, from the point of view of the Philippines or from the point of view of Vietnam, this seems like aggression. This seems like a more assertive or aggressive position or more aggressive posture than what uh had been the case previously. Um and so there's that sense of what's been termed uh great power autism, or the idea, the inability to accurately perceive the feelings of others as a rising great power. Um, that this is uh allegedly a feature of rising powers, that they tend to exhibit this uh lack of empathy or inability to um take seriously the system's uh interpretation of their changed position within that system, of their rising status. Um I think uh you know, I think a lot of these developments that uh that you lay out, the Belt and Road, I think is uh is another effort uh on the part of Xi Jinping to reach out to friends and neighbors and to solidify China's links to build infrastructure and other kinds of uh mechanisms to solidify China's relations with its partner nations around the world. Uh and I think that um it's a it's a complicated phenomenon. I think there's a lot going on there, and I'm happy to kind of get into the details as time permits, but um, but I think I think in in general, a lot of these initiatives, a lot of these activities that we're seeing from uh China in the late 20 teens and then into the uh 2020s can be summarized under the grand strategy of uh China's discovery or feeling out or experimenting with what it thinks of as its great power grand strategy, that China has, for the most part, arrived on the world stage, and now the world needs to learn how to properly interact with that new fact. That that's simply a new fact, and there's going to be a little bit of an adjustment period while everybody gets accustomed to that new distribution of power in both the regional system and then globally. And I think that's kind of where we are right now with China's grand strategy, that they're in that they're in that uh semi-experimental phase of seeing what does work, what doesn't work, what seems to be effective, what seems to be less effective. Um but in general, the assumption is that China's arrived and it's a great power, and therefore it deserves to uh command deference to its uh particularly its its most highly valued preferences and strategic interests. But uh the realist in me, as a as sort of an international relations thinker, uh the realist side of me says that it seems logical to me that as China's power grows, it it'll probably feel that it can afford to go further and further down its list of preferences as it gains the capabilities to pursue uh pursue its own um preferences in the international system. I think China will discover that it has a desire to go further and further down its list of, if you want to use the analogy of the Maslov's hierarchy of of needs, uh as a nation state, China can then afford to kind of go deeper and deeper down that list of preferences and and uh interests as its power grows. I don't think that's unique to China. I think that's simply a function of a realist's uh view of the way international affairs happens. Uh but that's uh that's my sort of take on where we are today.

SPEAKER_00 8:33

Indeed. And when you look at the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when you go past the basic needs of security and uh safety uh and physiological needs like food, warmth, and et cetera, obviously apply more to a person, but here in this case applying to a country, then you get really into the psychological and the self-fulfillment needs. And that seems like where China is going with projects like the Bell Road Initiative. And I want to go a bit deeper into this. Dr. Norris, you mentioned that two steps forward, one step back, it kind of feels like Bell Road isn't really going that direction. Uh maybe I'm wrong here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, uh, but it does seem like such an ambitious vision forward that it seems like if they can keep going, it seems like they can never be coming back, and they can never really be able to dial back. Obviously the country is going to have constraints, but at least from a certain country's perspective, it doesn't seem like it's slowing down at all. So, Dr. Norris, can you specify a bit more on the Bell and Road Initiative? Do you see any signs that the Bell and Road Initiative is going to have to put a break on certain initiatives just so the country can move forward with some of the domestic and international issues it's dealing with at the moment?

SPEAKER_02 9:53

Yeah, I think uh so I think Belt and Road is uh there's a lot going on there. There's a lot to unpack on Belt and Road. I would suggest um Min Yeah, who's a professor at Boston University, uh recently uh released a really good book on Belt and Road. And her argument there is that this is largely a uh a rebranding effort of a series of pre-existing domestic or domestically oriented initiatives of development. Um, and that Belt and Road is simply the the most recent uh rebranding or reiteration of that. Um and she kind of gets into what that domestic political logic looks like. Um so I'd encourage you if you're interested in that, take a look at that um book that she has. Um so I think that there is a strategic logic to it, um, but I think in practice uh it often might look quite different than the vision lays out uh it it might look like. Um so I'll start by saying the the ambition is breathtaking, as you as you mentioned, Sherman. The the scale and the scope and what's uh foretold and what's envisioned um takes your breath away. This the the ambition behind it, I think, is quite striking. But if you look at the actual practice of Belt and Road in practice, um I think it at least today in 2020, it's it still has a long way to go before it's gonna realize that scale or that level of um of ambition. Uh and so I think there's a couple of things behind that. Uh part of the Belt and Road is an opportunity to uh redeploy potentially excess capacity in construction and engineering domestically in China abroad, uh using some of these uh potentially now quite world-class uh firms and be able to get them to do what they do, which is build things, build bridges, build ports, build roads, uh, build railroads, to get them to begin to do that beyond China, because the the marginal benefit of that continued really large infrastructure investment in China uh seemed to be reaching its peak or or maybe already beginning to decrease. So there had to be another outlet found for some of those capacities. Um a second point is uh the notion of um employment. So that kind of goes hand in hand with that industrial capacity or infrastructure build-out capacity. Um there's also on the demand side this idea that there seems to be, there's an ADB, the Asian Development Bank uh has a report out just before the creation of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank that called for uh a very large need of infrastructure, that there's going to be this very large, unmet need to invest in particularly Asian infrastructure uh over the coming decade. Um and uh and so China sees this Belt and Road Initiative as providing the supply to meet that demand, essentially. Um and then the Belt and Road Initiative expands more broadly around the world as more partner nations are interested in welcoming Chinese investment. So typically um investment brings jobs. Uh, not always the case with Chinese investment, where they tend to bring a lot of their own uh labor, at least historically, they'll bring a lot of Chinese labor to come in and work on a particular project with Chinese companies. So it doesn't always play out that way. But but I think when you get um new infrastructure built, ideally it should be productivity enhancing. It should be a net economic benefit for the receiver nations. Uh and so it's not a hard sell for countries, particularly countries that have an intense and acute infrastructure need to see a lot of benefit in something like Belt and Road. So the thing that's been of concern uh to some countries is at what price does that benefit come? So what are the what are the uh influence consequences that result from those tighter relations to China, both economically in terms of economic dependence, or from a perspective of standards, or from a perspective of supply chain integrity, or from the perspective of political um influence uh or obligation or debt. So you get this notion of debt trap diplomacy, the idea that some of the counterparties to BRI are taking on debt that are levels that are unsustainable, uh, and that that may uh impinge upon or hamper their their ability to service that debt or even um maintain control of those assets once they're once they're created, once they're built. So there's a lot to go on there in Belt and Road, but hopefully that kind of gets at some of those questions, Sherman.

SPEAKER_00 14:41

It does. It does. Thank you so much, Dr. Norris. I think the Bell Rotion initiative is one of the most fascinating things I study. I mean, that vision is really quite extraordinary, as you were saying. And I have very big concerns about what is going to do when it comes to the power dynamics, because in the past, the power dynamics still relied on trade, relying on the military. But now as we move forward into the 5G territory, now it becomes a bit more interesting, but also brings about a lot more risks. When you think about what 5G does to people, to society, and it's not all bad. It's just the scope of 5G, I think, is what really is going to trouble a lot of countries. And they want to be able to retain some kind of power, some kind of sovereignty on 5G. And we don't even know what the effect of 5G is. So when we see some of these projects coming from Bell and Road, uh I think rightfully the United States and its allies should be paying attention very closely, but not just tracking what the Bell and Road Initiative is going by. We need to be able to build sustainable, secure platforms. Otherwise, we are going to be facing a lot of cybersecurity concerns. That is going to be very close to the horizon. It already is an issue, but we might just have not seen the effects of cyber and cyber attacks if things were to really blow up in terms of relations between China and the West, in terms of relations between China and uh Bell Road Initiative countries? A lot to unpack, for sure. Ben, I'm gonna throw a question to you that brings this conversation a bit more to the present now, which is during the time of this COVID-19 pandemic and even the aftermath of the pandemic, amidst COVID-19, how do you think Chinese grand strategy is gonna have to change, if at all, given the international pressures that have been placed on China to be held accountable for a virus that should never have been released in the first place? I think China has greatly failed on this area. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

SPEAKER_01 17:04

Well, I think COVID's done a lot and changed a lot about how we view China. So I think before COVID, we were more I won't don't want to say open, but we were more willing to take China's word on some things. And we we knew that they're like their economic, their economic numbers, they were maybe not the greatest, but there were things that we would take them at face value for. I think COVID's really shifted that to where we now a lot of people in the Western world, especially, will distrust a lot of the information coming out of China. Um with the crackdowns being as and the lockdowns being as intense as they were in China, it's really put, I think, a bad taste in our mouth for how China's dealt with the virus, how they basically hid it from the world. And I think we've we haven't really put ourselves against something like this emanating from China. And I think this has really been a litmus test of how China's gonna work. And I think one thing China's done very well is it's leveraged, as Dr. Norris was saying, kind of creating some of that dependence and some of that investment abroad in political cloud, it's leveraged that at the WHO and as and abroad as it's it's developed and sent masks across the world. There's people that are looking at China as a model. Um, I don't recommend it as a model because it was a very harsh crackdown. Um, and I don't think it would work outside of an authoritarian state. But I do think that it's it's pushed the US, especially into a lot more of an adversarial relationship, not because we want to fight a war with China, but I think we've we've grown to distrust more and more information coming out of China as we realize it may not be what we were thinking, and they may be kind of what's going on on the surface may hide the undercurrents of what's actually going on. I think it's forcing a lot of people in the policy world, especially to really dig a little deeper and say, you say you only have three or four cases, or this isn't very bad, and all of a sudden it blows up in our face. So, what's what's the next crisis that's going to come from China? And how do we how do we um predict it and how do we prepare for it if the Chinese government isn't going to release all the information pertinent to us preparing for it and providing the access we need to properly study what's going on before it blows up in our face?

SPEAKER_00 19:47

I agree. I've looked at the pupils showing the favorability and unfavorability ratings of China. And I can tell you that the unfavorability numbers are skyrocketing. And they have been skyrocketing for quite a while, but especially amidst this pandemic. And who can blame these people? We have essentially a total failure in containing the COVID-19 virus. We've had to rely on states like Taiwan who sent an email to the World Health Organization expressing their concerns about the effects of this COVID-19 virus. And I really wish that there was a much better response. But alas, we are not living in that world of total transparency. I just cannot believe any numbers that are coming out of China. I mean, I think the last time I checked, it still had something along the lines of a few cases and they just don't publish numbers. They don't have this transparency mechanism that we share in the West and in many other countries. And when you have this unequal footing on transparency, that is going to pose a lot of adversarial tension. And I don't even blame anybody amongst the people of China. I blame the bureaucracy that's happening in the Chinese Communist Party government. And that has to be resolved. I think the injustices that have come out of this, the way that the pandemic has changed our lives, there's no question that the topic is going to continue for a very long time. It's going to raise a lot of questions about our relationship with other countries and whether or not there should be areas of cooperation. That is just up for debate. I think people have their own perspectives on how we should engage with China. But there's no question that the pandemic really has reinvigorated that debate. So we'll see where it goes. Dr. Norris, did you want to add anything to Ben's answer on the effects of COVID 19, at least as far as we know in this day and age?

SPEAKER_02 21:57

Yeah, I think um the interesting thing is. Is not going to be so much the uh COVID itself, which is in some ways sort of a an exogenous shock on a system, but it's it's gonna be more about how do countries respond to it in the aftermath. How quickly uh do they recover, how well do they recover? Uh what does that look like going forward? I think that's gonna have the bigger impact um because that's where you're gonna see that uh sort of differentiated response. That's what's gonna generate the the potential uh for a varying effect across different countries, is what they what they do in response and how do they recover and what do they do after after COVID. Um and we're still sort of in it, so we're still we don't know what that's gonna look like. Uh but I think that's definitely the thing to keep an eye on is what do countries do uh afterward and how do they respond and how do they retool and how do they um bounce back from it? And there might be um very different kinds of responses that come out of uh the COVID experience. But I I also wanted to uh comment on the second thing that Ben was talking about. In the history of US-China relations, uh, and not just US-China, but in a lot of US foreign policy, there's there's high points and low points uh in terms of a lot of our bilateral relationships. And where we are today uh is certainly in one of those more friction-oriented negative uh times in the US-China relationship. Um, but I also think that uh the history of this relationship is it does go up and down. There are there is variability in the temperature, if you will, of the US-China relationship. Uh, and that's where I think it's uh it kind of gets back to some of those principles of Washington, uh who I know is near and dear to your heart, Sherman. Uh, and and there's a couple of those that I wanted to kind of highlight. One is civility, even under these circumstances of low levels of trust in the US-China relationship, a lot of mutual suspicion, a lot of disappointment, a lot of rancor, a lot of uh anxiety about the other one, a lot of um antagonism and and negative feelings toward each other. Uh I think there's still that principle of Washington's of civility, I think is one that that deserves some uh to have some inspiring effect on both sides, I think, as we navigate through uh this period of the relationship. Um and the second one is uh education, and that's one of the things that I think both of you have benefited from your time at the Bush School and graduate school at Texas AM. Um, this is this is something that um that uh is always, I think, and I'm biased in this because I'm a professor, but I always think that there's a value uh in education, especially when it comes to something like China for US foreign policy, because um in the US educational system, in US foreign policy, uh there's not always a very deep reservoir of expertise or knowledge or familiarity with history or culture or um those kinds of uh those kinds of experiences, those kinds of of reservoirs of knowledge, I think, in the in the United States uh right now. Uh and I think it's one of the areas that I would suggest we could do better on. Like we need to get a little smarter and a little better on who is this second largest economy in the world, uh, potentially a near-peer competitor. Uh I think it it's it is deserving of learning a little bit about. And that's one of the things that I think is a benefit of this kind of a podcast, Sherman, is to allow listeners to uh indulge a little bit in their own education. I always encourage students, you don't have to stop learning after you graduate. Like it's always a good thing to keep learning and to ask interesting, important questions. And and part of what a good education should give you are the tools that you need to continue to inquire in your life and to be able to engage in research and to continue to ask interesting questions and to continue to uh explore those interesting topics. And one of the great things about our system, and this is one of the genius insights that Washington and other of the founding fathers had, was an educated um democracy is a good thing. That this is not, we don't have to fear for an educated population. And that's not true for a lot of regimes around the world. In a lot of places, having a population that's highly engaged in politics or highly um educated or highly knowledgeable could be very threatening to a regime. That's not the case with our system in the United States of America. We're blessed in the sense that we have a infrastructure and an institutional architecture that really values an engaged, educated electorate and citizenry. And so I think that that notion of education, particularly when it comes to China, is one that that really should uh continue to motivate us for at least uh the next decade or two, because I just think we have so much to learn uh about each other, both on both sides of the US-China relationship, but particularly on our side, I think, on the US side. Uh, there's so much for us still to learn. Um so I would I would kind of put those two out there uh to go side by side with Washington's ideas of patriotism, because uh I do think there's something special about this place and this country. And this this country is not like every other country. Uh, there's something unique that we have here in the United States that makes me very proud to be a U.S. citizen. I'm very grateful for that opportunity. Uh, and I think that it's uh it's a very unique um system, it's a very unique nation, and in in a lot of respects, the founding fathers were able to tap into something and unlock something that I think is um is is a human desire. There's a there's an ability for humans to kind of reach their fullest potential in a system like the United States is that allows uh that allows individuals to kind of pursue their passions and to pursue their beliefs and to exercise their rights uh and their freedoms to realize their fullest potential. Um, even if that fullest potential is is uh is doing something that that someone else may find disagreeable or they might disagree with, we've got that civility to kind of temper uh our uh our national polity. And and I think that that's one of the things that that makes this nation uh truly resilient and quite remarkable, in my opinion.

SPEAKER_00 28:23

Wow. I mean, I don't think I can put it any better than what you've done, Dr. Norris. I think you're absolutely right. I think what we are given in this life as an American citizen, for myself, for Ben, for yourself, and for countless others, I think it really is a true blessing. I think about how every week we come on every Monday at least at 6 a.m. Eastern, so that listeners from all over the world can learn about what people like yourself are doing to advance this education, advancing the knowledge across multiple platforms. And that's what keeps me going. It's because of the listeners, because of the guests who come on the show, and because of the country, because of what we are tasked to do, not as an occupation, but uh as a calling. As President George H. W. Bush often said, public service is a noble calling. We echo that all the time at the Bush School. I'll never forget those experiences with people like Ben and uh learning from professors like yourself, Dr. Norris, who really give future public servants the right tools, I think, and the right mindset, the right kinds of thinking, I think, is what is going to propel this nation to successes that we might not have ever imagined. So now I'll pose the question to Ben. As we contemplate on these principles of Dorth Washington and the founders, which principles do you believe are most applicable to our discussion and the topic matter in general?

SPEAKER_01 30:09

Ben, you're gonna make me follow that answer by Dr. Norris. All right.

SPEAKER_00 30:13

No pressure here, Ben. No pressure.

SPEAKER_01 30:15

I think I'm gonna I'm gonna go with uh patriotism as well. I think Dr. Norris is dead on the button with it. There is something special about the US, and I think we need to treat it like it is, like it is something special. We can pursue our passions, we can better our country through what we do without having the fear of anyone stopping us or anyone telling us you can't do this, you can't do that. But I think another big one is also national unity. And I don't think it I don't think we need to use it in the term of like we have to be completely unified behind events. But I think we've gotten so polarized in our system today, especially even when it comes to talking about China and foreign policy where people may not pay as much attention, that we get into echo chambers and we've stopped debating how to handle a problem and more of we've starting to debate what are the actual facts. I think it's important to have those debates and to have, you know, Dr. Norris comes at it with a very different perspective than I do, but at the end of the day, we need to agree that this base, these base facts are the facts. And I think we need to be unified in our approach of making our country better, putting ourselves in a better position to counter threats, um, whether they be from China, from North Korea, from anywhere in the world. And I think without being unified, in a sense of a population driven to better the country based on facts, based on peer discussion, compromise, and kind of going back to that, to the big principles that really built the nation, I don't think we're we'll ever be as prepared as we could be. So I'm gonna stress national unity on that one.

SPEAKER_00 31:58

Absolutely. Absolutely. The polarization, what can I say? It keeps going on and it shouldn't. I think what we can do is to have these constant conversations. I really believe that these are important pillars for any kind of advancement of national discussion. As Ben pointed out, it doesn't mean that we all have to agree on every single issue. But when is enough enough? That I think is the question. Whether it's debate on social media influence or the way that the congressional calendar is formed, there are multiple avenues, I think, to tap into what the root causes are of this polarization. But I will say one thing I want to add to this is one thing to combat this polarization I think is to learn from people like both of you. Because I think you've both have demonstrated substantial amounts of research. I know that Ben has been telling me about his research interests along with his work with Dr. Norris. And Dr. Norris, it's professors like yourself who inspire me to continue, inspire us as a generation, a new generation of public servants. The United States truly is the beacon of light in the world that lights the world up with freedom, opportunity, and justice. You gotta have to keep at it. And I think the founders have done an incredible job of setting that foundation. They were not perfect, but they created a system where important progress and revolutionary change can happen for the good of the country and of the world, as Dr. Norris have pointed out, about the system and the system in which we live in. Dr. Norris, I want to now pose the question to you, which is what do you think are the roles of the founding fathers in our quest to further understand US-China relations, but also just in general, about learning about public service, learning about public policy and foreign policy, and if it's applicable, do you personally have a favorite founding father?

SPEAKER_02 34:21

Sure. So let me before I answer that question, I'll keep everyone on suspense for just a second. Um I also want to uh applaud the the students at the Bush School. So both Sherman and Ben, you guys are examples of these, but but your um having you guys in the classroom, uh you individual uh who want to graduate from the Bush School and then go serve in government and to make the world a better place. I mean, that is a very special kind of student that I have the privilege of having uh in the seats when I'm uh on the stage and teaching. And I really, really value that experience. I think that it's a unique privilege to be working with students who are already so interested and focused on dedicating their careers and their professional lives to uh making the world a better place. And that's a real privilege, I think, to have those kinds of students in the classroom. So I I think it's it goes both ways. I think that it's a real um unique institution that our nation has, and I'm I'm very glad that we have it, and I'm honored to be a part of that uh educational experience. Um in terms of in terms of my favorite founding fathers, so uh I thought about this a little bit. Um I I think to be honest with you, my favorite is uh it's kind of it's the American people themselves, it's us and the um what we read into the founding fathers. Because these individuals, and this is something that's important to keep in mind, they're still just human, which means they have strengths, they've got weaknesses, they've got fatal flaws. Um, there's nothing particular about the founding fathers that makes them walk on water. They were very gifted individuals. They were a unique collection of people that came together at a very unique moment uh with a brilliant vision. But in a lot of ways, I really put the honor on the country that followed subsequently to their initial foundations. And so the founding fathers laid the foundations and they gave us the architecture, but it's really been us. It's really been the people that have followed in their footsteps that have interpreted those institutions in a way that allows them to remain relevant and allows them to serve the needs of arguably the best country on the planet for generations now. Uh and I think it's it's our ability as a people, as the American people, to take what the Founding Fathers gave us, those institutions, those ideas, those perspectives, and be able to make them stay alive and have them be evergreen over generations and over decades and over hundreds of years. Um I think that a lot of credit needs to be given to our system and to our the people that make up our system, our citizenry, who uh we're the ones that that invest the Constitution with the kind of uh reverence that it carries. We we have the National Archives, like to the extent that we have a civic religion, that's the holy temple of it. Um but that's because of us. It's because of what we've read into these things, uh, the notion of um due process. I mean, it's a fairly straightforward legal basic concept, but we've found a way to make due process. Like you could drive a bus through due process now, because as a society, that's been our approach to it. And so it's that it's that idea that as a society, as a people, we've had the ability to keep the vision and the inspiration and the values that the founding fathers provided. We've been able to make it stay alive and relevant and adaptable over generations over time. And I think that's the real, in my opinion, that's that's what I value and I pride. Uh I that's the one that I am most interested in. It's the ability of the American people today to have built up over generations all of that initial inspiration and to make it come alive in a way that's meaningful into a modern nation state that still works in a lot of important ways. And that's something that I think is really admirable. It's the it's the ability over time of the American people to actually have built and then sustained that remarkable vision that the founding fathers provided to us. So that that's kind of like uh it's not exactly the answer. I I really do like Washington. I can tell you that my very first um public speaking engagement when I was probably in fourth grade or third grade um was a biography of Benjamin Franklin because I thought he was a really cool inventor who was a uh a real Renaissance kind of person that not only did he have these ideas and visions, but he, you know, he had the idea for public libraries in the United States. And again, this is all drawing on my fourth grade knowledge of expertise on the life of Benjamin Franklin, a lot of ecliptic interests. For similar reasons, Thomas Jefferson had similar kinds of renaissance capabilities. Um, but again, none of these people are perfect. They all had their own faults and foibles. And I think that there's a there's a there's a very quaint um misattribution that we as a country do with the founding fathers, which is to only see the greatest in these people, um, which I think again is a testament to that, to that remarkable ability of the American people to have built and sustained such an awesome country that we live in. Um I think that these things are connected. There's a reason that we look and we only see these great things about these remarkable individuals uh from that period, um, because I think we we want to see the best in them. We want to see those values that we want to see embodied in our nation today.

SPEAKER_00 39:37

I really love that answer, Dr. Norris. I really do. When you were talking about the founders and about what they represented, what they built, I think you're absolutely right. I view them as teachers. You know, they're not gods, we don't worship them like deities. I don't think we should at all. I think that is really the wrong way to learn from them. I think what we can take from them is learning that we can put out our virtues, we can put out what is best for the nation, and we will encounter obstacles. There will be times when it'll be very difficult to hold on to some of these values, perhaps, maybe because we think that some other value is more important than others. It's always a clash. It's always a difficult decision-making process when it comes to almost anything difficult. I think we're learning from them it really is a blessing. I don't think there's any other country that can say that they learn from the forefathers. I was just speaking to a friend of mine, and he said that what he admires so much about America is that it really is this kind of culture of the specific religion, and that it doesn't have to be about just one political party or one ideology. It's about uniting around common values. And we can project those values in different manners. That is what I think gives a country power. So I just want to echo what you just said about the founders. And I know that Washington, of course, is one of my favorites. I will say I do think every founder has not only just the strengths and weaknesses in general as a human being, but each founder complements uh other ones. I think you need some kind of Jeffersonianism. You think you need Hamiltonianism and you need some views of Madison and throw in the views of James Monroe if you wanted to. All right, Ben, you're up. Favorite founding father, anything you want to add?

SPEAKER_01 41:42

Man, I'm I'm following some pretty deep answers here. Wow.

SPEAKER_00 41:46

No, I believe in you, man.

SPEAKER_01 41:50

So I'm gonna I'm gonna go with uh Dr. Norris's fourth grade uh project. My favorite's Ben Franklin. Um, not because we share the same name.

SPEAKER_00 41:59

Ben Franklin would still be pleased with you.

SPEAKER_01 42:01

I like as Dr. Norris saying, he was a Renaissance man, he was eclectic, he had a very strong intellect, he was able to pour himself into a topic, really get to the bottom of it, and make some very interesting inventions. But I think Franklin owns the uh owns the kicker for my favorite founding father story. And so I'm gonna try to put this on public record because I want to make sure that I cannot walk this back. Um so basically, what he did is in in the colonial times, there was an issue with Britain sending over criminals to uh the colonies. So Franklin's proposal was that in return, the colonies sent rattlesnakes to the elite that were sending the criminals over because he saw them as the most suitable returns for the human serpent sent to us by the mother country. But he also said that rattlesnakes were not the best for fair trade because a rattlesnake gives warning before he attempts his mischief, where a convict doesn't. That's a good one. I can't get over that story. That was a good one. That was written in the Pennsylvania Gazette.

SPEAKER_00 43:11

Well, I think I know whom I would nominate for for the Pulzer Prize. I think the Pennsylvania Gazette gets it on this one. Uh well, Dr. Norris, I want to thank you so much for joining our show today. Your talks are really inspirational and so substantive. I learned so much from it, and I'm sure the audience today has done as well. And I know that you will continue to serve not just your students, but really the next generation, this generation, next generation of public servants. And Ben, thank you so much for joining me today. Your questions and points today were a great addition to the show. And I just cannot thank you enough for not just the support that you've been giving me on this podcast, but really the support you've given me at the time when we were bush school students. And I really cannot wait to see what we can create together and to see what future content brings on this Friends and Fellow Citizens podcast.

SPEAKER_02 44:19

Well, thank you very much, Sherman, and thank you for uh for putting it together and thank you for trying to continue to promote uh a civil uh national engagement on a lot of these very interesting and important topics. I really appreciate that.

SPEAKER_01 44:31

Thanks, Sherman. It was a pleasure being here and uh always a pleasure to learn from Dr. Norris, no matter what the format is. And I have to segment what Dr. Norris said. I always appreciate um civil dialogue, putting different ideas together. So I I'm very proud of this podcast, and I hope hope the best. Hope for the best for you, Sherman.

SPEAKER_00 44:53

Thank you so much, Ben. You've been a really great supporter. I can't wait to see when more comes in the future. Dr. Willie Norris and Ben Zimmer, thank you both, and this will wrap up our episode for this week. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I hope you will subscribe and share this podcast with your friends and family to tune in more on engaging content from solo shows to interview episodes. Don't miss every episode Mondays at 6 a.m. Eastern, available from all across the world.