May 25, 2022

510: Biden's Foreign Policy Report Card - The Good, The Bad, & The "Meh" (with Prof. Sarah Burns)

Returning to the program today is Professor Sarah Burns (Associate Professor of Political Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology) to give her report card grade of the Biden administration's foreign policy priorities - namely Afghanistan, Ukraine/Russia, and China/Taiwan.



"My difficulty with Biden is he's also an he's definitely an elder statesman. And he's also a former cold warrior.


So when you're thinking about how he's going to view the world, he's going to view it as this is my legacy.


We're returning to great power struggles, you know, how should he respond to that?"


Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

Studio SponsorBNC: Proven sales and messaging strategies that WIN -

Support our Sponsors!

Support the program with a one-time donation or join our Patreon!

Take our audience survey for a chance to win a "Don't Hurt People, Don't Take Their Stuff" bumper sticker! 




Brian Nichols  0:09  
Instead of focusing on winning arguments, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and marketing and how we can use them to win in the world of politics, teaching you how to meet people where they're at on the issues they care about. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show. Well, Happy Wednesday there, folks, Brian Nichols here on The Brian Nichols Show. And thank you for joining us on of course, another fun filled episode. What is going on in the world of foreign policy? Specifically Joe Biden's foreign policy? We're gonna dig into that in a second, but before we do, I have to go ahead and give a special shout out to today's sponsor. And yes, that is the one the only expat money show Summit, which you can go ahead and find at Brian Nichols Forward slash expat. Yes, you can go ahead and watch it for a week reap the benefits for generations November 7 through 11th is where you can go ahead and find this virtual summit five days. 30 expert speakers, go ahead and grab your free tickets today at Brian Nichols So we're going back to the world of foreign policy today. And we're gonna have a returning guest. She is a professor over in Rochester and she is joining us today to talk about what is going on with Joe Biden's foreign policy. Sarah burns, welcome back here to The Brian Nichols Show.

Sarah Burns  1:26  
Thanks for having me, Brian. Yeah, absolutely. Sarah,

Brian Nichols  1:28  
thank you so much for returning here to the program. And we're looking forward to digging into what on earth is going on in the world of Joe Biden's foreign policy because a lots happened since you were last in the show here back in February of 2021. It seems like it was a different era. And yet it wasn't really that all too long ago in the distant past. So before we go into what's happened since we last connected, let's do a quick reintroduction. Who are you and what brought you into this world of foreign policy that you find yourself

Sarah Burns  1:57  
in? Hi, I'm Sarah burns, as Brian said, I'm an associate professor of political science at Rochester Institute of Technology. I work on American Constitutionalism and foreign policy decisions. And I got into foreign policy because I was looking at war powers and the fact that presidents have so much power in the realm of war. And we are continuing to see that today. Although Joe Biden is getting a lot of assists from Congress now for his efforts in Ukraine. And we'll see what happened with Finland and Sweden, getting involved in NATO, and just say nothing of Taiwan and what's going on there.

Brian Nichols  2:34  
Just there's just a few things that are on the list to discuss. And we were we were sitting down were like, what should we talk about today? And it's like, well, a lots happened since we last had you on the show. And a lot of it has happened very, very quickly. Let's start things off with I think and this is one of the things we talked about first, because I think for the the folks in the audience who are in more than the Liberty school here, they probably like this from Trump, and they maybe like this from Biden, maybe not so much the way that Biden went about it. And that is the number one walking back from Afghanistan. But number two, the leaving of billions of dollars of with equipment behind and now you see Afghanistan has been taken back over by the Taliban. Sarah, what happened with the Biden, withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Sarah Burns  3:21  
Yeah, it's a really good questions and such a tragic one. Because you also have just immense human suffering now under the Taliban, and all of the people who helped us who are trying to move the country in a different direction, are now either under attack or have had to flee the country, when really what they wanted to do was stay. Furthermore, you have a bottlenecking of immigration into the United States, even though again, these are people who genuinely helped us to try and create a future for Afghanistan that wasn't quite so religiously conservative, and arguably backwards from the rest of the world are looking away from the rest of the of the liberal international system. So it was always going to be a problem pulling out there's there's almost no good way to end a war effectively. If you're saying, Well, we're just leaving, and we're not having any troops stay behind. There isn't an example in US history where we've done that, and it's been clean and blood free. That said, at some point, you really had to pull the plug. It was a 20 year engagement. You know, there was no justification for staying any longer. There wasn't really justification for staying much past 2003 or 2004, when we realized that we weren't going to be able to create legitimate western style liberal democracy in Afghanistan. And you just had, you know, administration after administration double down or triple down or quadruple down. So I admire Biden for taking the hit politically and it's tragic that all of this is happening to a group of people who have been and run over by Empire after empire with no, not asking for any of this themselves. So it's it's too bad that it ended the way it did. But it did need to end as
Brian Nichols  5:14  
well. And I guess that opens up the question to the next topic, and that is probably the one that's hit. Everybody's TV stations, it's hit everybody's news feeds. And then as the war in Ukraine, you can't scroll on social media without seeing a Ukraine flag in somebody's social media profile picture or or headline. So we see, it looks like Biden acknowledged, what we we understood was the flaws in Afghanistan, and then, in some respects, do exactly one ad with Ukraine. And now we're sending just oodles of cash and weapons over to Ukraine, the most recent figure that we just saw that we just gave a $40 billion over to Ukraine. So we're seeing right now Ukraine has become essentially the Eastern Front to combat the big, bad Russian foe. And it seems like right now we have this schism between the folks who are saying, Listen, if we want this Ukraine Russian war to end, there has to be some concessions on both sides. Whether we like that or not the other saying, Nope, we have to keep going. And you'll just Outlast Putin or maybe get rid of Putin. Sarah, what are your thoughts on this this Ukrainian Russian conflict? And where do you see this actually ending?

Sarah Burns  6:32  
Another small question, Brian, I know right? To answer. So I, I'm sympathetic to people who say there have to be concessions on both sides. The reason I say that is because the idea that we're going to have a protracted conflict in Ukraine, in order for Ukrainians to regain even Crimea, which is what Zelinsky just said, either yesterday or today, I can't recall now. seems unlikely. I said that in part, because I do think that Western powers, the United States in specific should have a sense of like, this is our, our tipping point, right? Where we say, All right, we've supported you, we will support you, you absolutely have a right to territorial integrity. You know, maybe we did the wrong thing in 2014, by allowing Crimea to fall, you know, that seemed like a calculated risk and an unnecessary one at the time, but to say now in 2022, when we have to get all of Ukraine back and all of Ukraine back into Ukrainian hands, I think opens the door to continued insurgencies in the Russia facing and Russian backed, and Russia incline areas in the East and in Crimea, in the east of the country in the Donbass. So saying that means that, you know, you're going to have a protracted conflict, if you don't give up anything to Russia on the on the Ukrainian side. And at the same time, if you give up everything to Russia, or everything that Russia is currently looking for, which is the land bridge between Crimea, and in Russia, that feels extremely dangerous for Ukraine. So I don't think that you can go that far with Russia where they would, like I said, having land bridge between Russia and Crimea, which would cut off the Ukrainians from from the Black Sea, which would be horrifying for their economy. At the same time, Crimea is barely rested. Russia facing is barely inclined to be part of Russia. Is it 80 or 90%? Like they say in the polling? I don't think so. Right. I don't trust that polling. But similarly in the Donbass, there are people who really do want to be connected more strongly with Russia. So I don't think that it's realistic for the West to continue supporting Zelinsky. If so, Lindsey, if he says that he has to have all of Ukraine back into ingredient hands?

Brian Nichols  8:57  
Yeah. Well, and also elephant in the room. Russia has is still the largest nuclear power in the world, if I'm not mistaken. They have the largest weapon, weapons arsenal? If right, is that correct?

Sarah Burns  9:11  
It's either the largest or the second largest. So scary,

Brian Nichols  9:13  
right? Not not a good thing. Like I don't think anybody wants to be poking the bear either way of nuclear power, especially when if the rumors are true that Vladimir Putin is kind of, you know, just going out on his last hurrah. If that is the case. Would we necessarily think that he would not hit the button just because I don't want to find out and I don't think anybody really wants to get to the point that we find out. And to your point that may require us to I saying this on a show, again, overlay in the Liberty crowd. We want it to yield more more peace talks, less tensions and get away from the the nucular turmoil that just seems around the corner. I mean, that's the proverbial minute to midnight clock that they've had for the past 6070 years of how close we are to the end of the world the Doomsday, and it just seems like we're a millisecond away at this point, because you do have each side seemingly poking each other. And now what right, like when you're at that stalemate, what what's going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back? I don't think anybody wants to be around to find out.

Sarah Burns  10:22  
No, I don't think we do. And I think that's partially why you really have to think about the horrible choices that are going to have to be made in Ukraine and to a certain extent in Russia, because we really have broad international consensus that you cannot use nuclear weapons. The reason we have that is because everyone knows as soon as you get great powers engaging with each other, the temptation to go nuclear is going to be too much for at least one side. The temptation is enough for one side, that's that's the ballgame, right? That's literally the earth shattering existential crisis ballgame. So you really don't want to find out what even tactical nuclear weapons would look like, in a conflict, because that opens this Pandora's box like, well, you know, if Russia can do it once, maybe we can also do it, maybe, you know, the Chinese could do it against the Taiwanese or something like that, to try and diminish an insurgency in Taiwan, if they, you know, felt like invading as they are flirting with now, right? So, you know, this is not this is not a world that we want to go back to. This was the Cold War world that my parents lived through where, you know, they would be doing drills and sitting under their desks as if you know, the atoms in their body would be just fine if a nuclear bomb hit because they're under a desk, right? This is, I mean, this is a world that we very happily left in the 1990s. And it would be such a tragedy if we went back to it.

Brian Nichols  11:51  
Oh, it would be an absolute tragedy. And I think there's two tragedies on this front, there's the Russian tragedy, and you hinted at the partner wanting to go to next and that is yes, what is happening over in Taiwan. But first, yes, we want to go ahead and quickly direct our YouTube viewer as well as our audio listeners attention towards our morning sales, huddle, head over to the Brian Nichols and sign up for not just the morning sales huddle in your inbox once per week by yours truly, which it is the proven sales tips and tricks and methods that I taught my sales team to help them hit their sales numbers and lead to sales success interested. Not only will you get that, but you'll also get four easy steps you can implement now to help sell liberty to friends and family my free new ebook it will be in your inbox as well. One more time, Brian Nichols. Sign up today. Alright, Sarah, so Taiwan, China, it's getting a little weird. It's getting a little rough. You had Joe Biden, right. Joe Biden saying? Yes, we will. We will defend China with military. And that's something he did not say about Ukraine. And China to also happens to have some nucular weapons. So what's, what's going on? Is we're getting to this point. I mean, I don't want to be that guy. But like, you have a two front war almost, it seems like here, I don't want to say world war three. But Goodness gracious. The rhetoric seems to be pointing that way, Sarah?

Sarah Burns  13:22  
Yes, it does. And so hopefully, your readers have, you know, cute animal friend videos that they can watch after this to try and calm down a little bit. But Biden did unequivocally say he was I would encourage you guys to go and look at the footage of the of the moment because he's asked by a reporter. And Joe Biden has a bit of a foot and mouth disease kind of issue where he just kind of says the wrong thing. And then his press secretary, and people have to backtrack. But in this instance, it was the shocking moment where a reporter says to him, you know, would you support Taiwan? If China invades militarily or if China invades? And he says yes, yeah. To which the reporter then seems like she's not she was wasn't accepting the answer. He's kind of like, wait, wait, did you just did you to stay that clearly and decisively, and you're not, you know, hedging language, there's no one that would change my calculation or, you know, we're looking at it, we're reviewing things, nothing's off the table. These are the sorts of phrases that politicians and American presidents use, so that they can give themselves a maximum amount of wiggle room. So he's giving himself no wiggle, which is both again, a great strategy in principle, because it's saying very clearly to the Chinese in, you know, big shining letters, you are not, you are not allowed to flirt with this. You are not allowed to do anything about this. And what's very interesting if you look, because obviously Biden is still responsible to us, the American people, if you look at polling data, Americans are very supportive of of supporting Ukraine with the military but not actually engaging in a military operation in Ukraine. Conversely, American since 2020, we can probably see a correlation here with something else. But I'm not gonna I don't know for sure if the the pandemic is the reason that we see this shift. But starting in 2020, you see Americans being much more supportive of the idea of the US engaging militarily if the Chinese did invade Taiwan. So you see it go from roughly 40, or 45%, of Americans supporting US military intervention to something like 60, or 70%. I don't have the numbers, I'm sorry, in front of me, but it's something very high and very surprising, and very new. Right. So again, maybe it's the pandemic, pandemic, maybe it's other moves that China has made. But we see a decided shift in the American public when it comes to military intervention in Taiwan, that I would hope, you know, the combination of the clear language from Biden, and then they have the internet just like we do. So they can see that there's a sufficient support for this action in the United States. I would hope that that would signal to China that this is not that the juice is not worth the squeeze. Our difficulty sometimes, though, is we'll say things that are we'll say things that we interpret as these are defensive measures, and they will be interpreted as offensive measures to our adversaries or, you know, partner type people.

Brian Nichols  16:30  
When it begs the question this, this kind of popped in my mind, so why the rapid defense of Taiwan? Is it because and I think I know the answer, because they are pretty much HQ for any and all semiconductors and any real advanced technologies being produced there. But is that pretty much the the ultimate reason of why we are so adamant on defending Taiwan, that's likely

Sarah Burns  16:57  
the government's reason, I would think that the people's reason or it's like the American people who may not be as versed in, you know, international supply chains. Their support, I think relates to the fact that they see Taiwan as an independent country. So even though the American government officially recognizes the one one China policy, meaning that Taiwan is officially and for all diplomatic purposes, a part of China, at the same time we engage with them to a meaningful extend as an independent nation, both diplomatically and financially, we just never say they're an independent nation. And I know that's a complicated thing to say. But I just present that because it's important to realize that there's kind of like a diplomatic wink wink thing happening where de facto, it's independent, but disarray, it's actually part of China. So I think in American American minds, Taiwan is an independent country. So therefore, if China invaded, even though China could claim legitimacy, that it's just, you know, reinforcing its control over this island. Americans say no, that would be equivalent to or very similar to the Russians invading Ukraine. So that's why the support is there, in the case of Taiwan, and the government support, as you mentioned, is, is likely related to the incredibly important role that Taiwanese play in the international supply system. The other thing I'll mention is, there was a prospective that everyone agreed would work very well with Hong Kong being in but not of China. So it would be similar to Taiwan, but slightly different, because obviously, it's just a city rather than a whole island and therefore, a whole nation. And Beijing's consistent desire to crack down on Hong Kong, I think has also led to disillusionment on the fact that we could have an independent country or an independent ish entity within the Chinese country. So I think all of those things combined, so the pandemic, the Taiwanese, the important place, Taiwan, the important role Taiwan plays in the international supply chain. And then the the obvious problems that we have seen with Hong Kong, all those things, I think, have come together to make people more supportive of US military intervention in Taiwan, which would hopefully then decrease the likelihood because China would know, you know, that is world war three, right, that is starting a military operation with the United States and their military. I'll say this carefully. They have a huge military, they're arguably the second largest military in the world. However, unlike our military, they have not been tested in major battles. That means that once you start something up, you might have logistical and strategic issues, significant tactical issues that can make it very difficult for them to succeed even if they outman us out, supply us and all these other things, or AND and OR catch us off guard

Brian Nichols  20:00  
See, I? I'm glad you brought up Hong Kong because you actually took down the notes. Are you looking at my notes, Sarah? Because I said, Well, what happens if China invades Taiwan? I used Hong Kong in my notes here as the example because we saw, there was a lot of support for Hong Kong when the protests were happening across the world that seemed and then all of a sudden, COVID happened and the COVID or the protests just disappeared. And all sudden, you don't hear about the Hong Kong protests anymore. And I asked you this, because I mean, we saw how quickly China was able to just move forward. They dominate the global economy in a lot of different areas. I mean, you see, Hollywood has really kowtow to a lot to China. NBA, I mean, it's, it's insane when you see how much really controlled they have ultimately been able to garner over the past few decades. And I asked, you know, will they be able to, seemingly Hong Kong, Taiwan, with just the amount of, really I don't wanna say the control they have, but ultimately does come down to control the influence that they've been able to garner just by the sheer strength of their dollars?

Sarah Burns  21:17  
Yeah, it's a very good question. I would say to me, there are important differences between Hong Kong and Taiwan. One Hong Kong, obviously has this long history as your listeners or viewers may know it was a British protector, it I think, is the determinant had. So for 100 years, the British were controlling Hong Kong, and then the handover was in 1997. So Hong Kong is only been part of China for the last, you know, two and a half, 25 years roughly. Comparatively, Taiwan has been arming itself and preparing for a Chinese invasion, since Chiang Kai Shek fled there in 49, when the when they when he lost the Civil War to Mao. So Taiwan, has been ready for the threat from China from day one. And the US has been predominantly supportive of Taiwan's quasi independence, to the point where we regularly supply them with military infrastructure, we regularly supply them with trainers for their military. So they are much larger. Also, I think, Taiwan, I want to say it's 60 million people, but it might be 30. So we can look that up. Because there's such a large population compared to Hong Kong, which is still just a city, the capacity for an insurgency and the capacity for just draining China over a decade or two, like we were drained in Afghanistan, is a very, very likely outcome. Because the Taiwanese are not going to just, you know, give up, fly the white flag and give China control. They do also think of themselves as an independent country, they do also think of themselves as having a unique identity as Taiwanese, so much like the Ukrainians post 2014, the Taiwanese have thought of themselves as a distinct culture that is not Chinese that does not take that is not able to be absorbed by the Chinese since 1949, roughly, maybe 1970s, depending on your perspective. So I think that the Chinese not only see strong American support, at least I'm not sure about Western allies, strong American support, but they also see the very real possibility of a being bled the way that Russia is being bled. If they go in, right, and even if they have like overwhelming force, which they do, compared to Taiwan, Taiwan, is prepared for that kind of invasion, even more so than Ukraine was so like, I would compare Taiwan to how prepare the Baltic states are for war, they've been really ramping up and really capable of using sophisticated mobile technology to ensure that any way the Russians want to attack them, if they do, they would be able to mobilize and shift their military power to that point or those points. So I think Taiwan has that that same level of military preparedness. And that's, I don't want to say a good thing, because I don't think we should encourage this military industrial complex. But insofar as they've been threatened by China since 49, I completely understanding of why it is that they have such a large military buildup.

Brian Nichols  24:29  
Alright, Sarah, here comes the fun question I get to ask and because we have talked about, really the three major areas that would identify the Biden foreign policy here over the past few years. So what's the report card grade for President Biden thus far? Specifically looking at a foreign policy perspective?

Sarah Burns  24:50  
Yeah, it's a good it's a good question. And I should have thought of that being a professor. You know, I shouldn't think of people as like a B or C students, or D students, but we try to Ignore those because they make us sad for America's future. So I guess I'll talk it out and then see where I feel like he lands. My difficulty with Biden is he's also an he's definitely an elder statesman. And he's also a former cold warrior. So when you're thinking about how he's going to view the world, he's going to view it as this is my legacy. We're returning to great power, we're returning to great power struggles, you know, how should I respond to that? And so I, I think it was a really good idea to pull up pull out of Afghanistan, even though it was messy. So I'll give him like, a beyond that, because so I'm going to do it piece by piece. So again, it will be on on Afghan Afghanistan, because, yes, he had to do it, but he did it really poorly. And I really feel like a State Department could have been ramped up much better so that you would have people in place to help process visa is to help get the American public to be sympathetic to these people, the way that the American public seem to be naturally very sympathetic to the Ukrainians, right, we look at the the comparative response to Ukraine refugees versus Afghan refugees. And, you know, we're not going to get into it. But this is night and day, right? Even though we cause the Afghan refugee crisis, I digress. The point is, so this is, so that's like a B, right? There's some good things about it. There's other things that aren't so great. On Ukraine, I would give him at least a minus if not an A, I think you do need to be the leader who brings NATO together who says we are standing behind Ukraine, but we're not going to use the American military because American military in Ukraine is world war three. Taiwan. I mean, like I said, I've looked into the numbers a little bit. So seeing that the American public supports that kind of action. I think it's a little more understandable that he used that definitive language. But I worry that it's going to be interpreted offensively, meaning that the Chinese are going to say, well, we're going to get into a war with America, over Taiwan. So we better do it now. Rather than wait, when the Taiwanese defense system and like the American support for the Taiwanese defense system has been ramped up due to all of the Chinese rhetoric, so I'd give him like an A minus B plus, on the on that situation.

Brian Nichols  27:23  
So but let's see, we got a b, a minus a minus b plus, I mean, I'm not the professor here. But I would say that probably in your estimation is like an A minus B plus across the board. Yeah. So

Sarah Burns  27:36  
you know, this student, right, but not hitting it out of the park.

Brian Nichols  27:40  
And I mean, I would say, of the things you've listed off here, I mean, Afghanistan, I think my audience would agree with you 100%, that that might easily be like the best thing. He's done, though, the means and doing it. Not so great. Right. But the act, and to your point of him actually having to do it. I think we'll definitely have a little bit of, you know, areas of disagreement there on Russia, Ukraine, China and Taiwan. But I think it's more so because a lot of the folks who are in the liberty movement, we just tend to be more of the the non interventionist camp in general. So we're more like, can we just please stay hanging out here instead of sending $40 billion overseas? Have you gone to downtown Philadelphia? Yeah, go drive there and look at the potholes. And oh, by the way, just make sure you duck because it seems like the drive by shooting every other day at this point, partly why I left. But again, not my turn to digress. But no, Sarah, I think we are seeing you this is a one area that have a very blemished black eye presidency. This seems to be the one area he has not done being President Biden, he has not done as poorly as others, especially when you look at the you know, to your point, the way that a lot of Americans feel on these issues. Yes. The Americans knew we had to get out of Afghanistan. Do we like the way it was done? No, but they understood it had to be done. I think you look at to your point, a lot of folks do have that, you know that empathy towards Taiwan? Do they necessarily know what that will entail when it comes to actually exactly having military involved in there? Probably not. So I believe we're going to see a lot of this kind of shape out a little bit more over the next few years. And who knows, I mean, by 2022, could really change the tenor of our foreign policy, especially if Congress ends up flipping more towards the Republican. And then obviously, 2024 is going to be a very pivotal year, Biden is going to have to stand on his accolades and really stand on his history and his foreign policy that he's been able to accomplish over the past four years and a Republican candidate is going to be able to point out those weak spots that we talked about here today. So very interesting stuff that we're going to obviously be mapping out here and Sarah will make it a point to make sure we have you on sooner rather than later next time so we can stay more up to date versus having three life changing events and world changing events happen in less than a year and a half time. So with that being said, Sara, final thoughts here for the audience. And of course, where can folks go ahead and support you and continue the conversation if they feel so inclined?

Sarah Burns  30:14  
Great, I'd say final thoughts. You know, this is, this is a changing world. One of the ways that people talk about this is, there's a forum called the Davos Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where everyone kind of gathers and says, like, aren't we great, because we have this international economic cooperation and interdependence, and there's never gonna be anything bad that happens. And so once you have Russia invade Ukraine, you see the entire international economic system, panic, right, because the entire economic system is based on the idea that nothing very, very bad is going to happen. So when you have events like 911, and you have events like Russia invading Ukraine, that sends a shock to the entire system, which diminishes the likelihood of economic integration, which I would net say, is a bad thing for the world, right? It's very, very good to have economic integration, it's very good to have more developed countries, engaging in developing countries, especially because that nicely counters the Russian Belt and Road Initiative, that maybe just a way to get poor countries into debt to China, I digress. The point is, economic integration is a great tool for the liberal international world order. That's gentle and non military. So when we have these big shocks like this, like Ukraine, like Ukraine getting invaded, that can make everyone be too risk averse. So many people are pulling out their investments in developing nations, and they're reassessing the value of that, and thinking maybe more, we should just integrate, say, the Western Allies in some Asian countries, rather than taking more riskier investments. So this is always a bad thing. So I would say I would hope people would cut against that, and we'll still see the value to the international interdependent economic order. That being said, you know, using the military are trying to use the military to enforce that or to push people towards other kinds of political systems. I don't think that's a good use for for our system, for the military. Anyway. As for me, I'm a I have a website called Sarah and Otherwise, you can find me at RMIT My email address is very easily available. Just Associate Professor Sarah burns. I'm on Twitter as Sarah Mackenzie B. I'm not terribly interesting, though. And then otherwise, you could find me on Facebook. I'm myself the space and then my name.

Brian Nichols  32:40  
Awesome. Well, Sarah, thank you so much for your insight today. And what we'll do folks will include all those links there on today's episode, so all you have to do if you're listening today, to today's episode on your podcast, just click the artwork there and your podcast catcher, it'll bring you right to Brian Nichols, where you can find not only today's episode, yes, all those links, also the entire transcript of today's episode. Oh, and by the way, you can find the link to the video version of today's show, which is going to be found over on YouTube. So it will make it very easy for you folks. And also Sarah, thank you for for obviously helping paint the picture here in terms of what we've seen over the past few years, what we're likely to see going ahead and obviously it's a conversation we will continue to focus on and that being said, Folks, if you enjoyed today's episode, well number one, please go ahead and give it a share. But number two, if you did enjoy today's episode, then you're going to love our past few episodes we had here now I haven't been on YouTube in a couple of days. Reason being I was over on another program in liberty and health. We talked about how we can go ahead and fix the broken libertarian messaging. And then most recently, on my program on Monday, we had our good friend Tim McMaster. We asked why is this libertarian farmer running for lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania? interested? Don't worry, I have that video popping up right here below us in the show notes. But with that being said, Folks, if you enjoyed the episode one more time go ahead and give it a share. But it's Brian Nichols signing off. You're on The Brian Nichols Show for Professor Sarah burns. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Brian Nichols Show. Find more episodes at the Brian Nichols

Transcribed by

Sarah BurnsProfile Photo

Sarah Burns

Associate Professor

Sarah Burns is a Fellow at the Quincy Institute, and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology. In her recent book, The Politics of War Powers, she demonstrates how the Constitution creates an invitation to struggle between the branches. Since World War II, Congress has failed to engage in the struggle, allowing presidents to create and execute poorly developed policy in the realm of war.