good evening and welcome to our grand rapids audience in the c-span viewers out there, we're i'm gleaves whitney i had the privilege of serving in this great institution with great partners at the national archives and your foundation. and i said the director without foundation three years. yeah, we could have. these are interesting times which are. wars and rumors of wars released deep economic challenges here at home and abroad, dysfunction in our government institutions, americans expressing a deep crisis, confidence in leaders. it's decisions. all the things our national guard, our selves sounds

familiar, no doubt. and it describes what was going on a half century ago. it seems sorry that if you look at the service upstairs, you now one of the questions the american people faced during that time, also this period, a half century, our nation was band supported the bicentennial celebration of 1976. it formed within us in that endeavor and that same question today is whether the united states is a great nation, arguably may precisely the greatest nation or so fundamentally flawed. it cannot be effectively reformed or ready now that so great question is for our participants. we saw this evening and we found a section. i asked my good friend and colleague jeff what actor jeff platt is the director of the fourth leadership forum here at the ford foundation, and he some

thoughtful questions or this to interlocutors suggests that jeff is going to introduce them now. thank you, jeff. it's. my hope i can fulfill your hopes that these questions will actually be provocative. i'm not completely sure that i'd like to welcome everyone here, and i know this hasn't gone exactly as planned. we had originally scheduled dr. gordon wood for this evening. he was not able to attend, but i think that we've hit a home run as a pinch hitter in this situation. so we're very pleased to welcome to our stage two professors from the university of notre dame, dr. patrick deneen to my immediate left and then to my far left. dr. phillip munoz and june. of 2018, barack obama posted on his facebook page the ten books that he was reading at that

time, and one of the books he mentioned, he set about the book in a time of growing inequality, accelerating change and increasing disillusionment with the liberal democratic order we've known for the past few centuries, i found this book thoroughly thought provoking. i don't agree with most of the authors conclusions, but the book offers cogent insights into the loss of meaning and community that many in the west feel issues that liberal democracy is ignore at their own peril. that book was this book why liberalism failed by patrick deneen. one of our guests tonight. one lesson from that, by the way, is if you want to sell books, have an ex-president tweet about it. so that unbelievable marketing strategy. in addition to being the author of why liberalism failed, dr. deneen is also the author of regime change. his most recent book, the odyssey of political theory democratic faith and conserving

america. dr. phillip munoz. to my knowledge, no president has tweeted about you yet, but i suspect your day will come. you can read in your fliers his biography. he is the author of religious liberty and the american founding natural rights and the original meanings of the first amendment, religion clauses, god and the founders. madison, washington and jefferson. and religious liberty. and the american supreme court. the central cases and documents. and i am thrilled that they have come here tonight to join us on our stage for what i do believe will be a provocative conversation. let's begin with sort of what gleaves was talking about. maybe even what president obama was talking about. and we're going to be talking mainly about the american founding. but let's begin in the present. in your writings, you have both expressed concern that the

american experiment is in trouble. and i think that we can all see the symptoms of this. what do you mean by that? and what evidence do you give for it? and then after that, i'll ask you what you think has caused it. patrick, you want to go first? sure. well, let me first thank jeff gleaves at the gerald ford museum foundation for this invitation. we realize we're pinch hitters and pale comparisons to the clean up batter who was scheduled for tonight. so i'm no gordon wood and i know that. but maybe two of us together can come up to about a quarter of what what he might have been able to offer. i'm also actually i should mention that i'm delighted i am to be here with my colleague phillip munoz, who has i think is about three doors away from me in the hallway where our department is. but whom i just spent 2 hours driving up here with and

probably was about the longest time i've seen you in about the last ten years. we're both very busy people, so it was great to spend time with my colleague and friend, dr. munoz. i suppose gleaves introduction reflects what i doubt. i don't doubt many of us in this room feel that something is deeply awry and deeply wrong, and it's difficult to sort of put one's finger on exactly what it is. but i'll make at least something of an attempt. i think we could point, as he began, with the kind of deteriorating intonation tional situation, one that's very much on our minds, and one over which in the years that i was growing up and maybe many in this room are growing up, the kind of post world war two era, which of course we saw wars, we saw korea, we saw vietnam, we saw wars in the middle east. nevertheless, it felt in some ways like there was an international order in some form. and i think that that may in

some ways be coming to an end, certainly one that has had america as a kind of hegemonic power. and we're seeing the rise of a kind of now multipolar international order. but i don't think that's that's really the the reason of our deepest anxiety. i think i think all of us in this room are feeling a certain amount of economic anxiety with what seems to be worsening conditions of inflation, massive deficits of our government, massive deficits, debts of its deficits of many homes. the level of indebtedness of the students that we teach. i mean, the idea of a young person coming out of college and being massively in debt, what a what a horrible legacy of a successful country that's not the root cause. i think we can point to the decay of our cities, the divisions that exist now between red and blue america at some level. and those are certainly parts of it. but let me at least offer one one suggestion about the maybe

the deepest roots of our sense of anxiety about the present and the future. and i thought it was interesting that it was mentioned that 1770, 1976, the bicentennial. i remember those years i was 12 years old. i remember very vividly. i remember learning how to sign john hancock's name. this was like that was my lesson plan. my mother and father flew to flags on the two poles of our front porch, the american flag and the betsy ross american flag as the two flags, though, that would now be considered to be a macro aggression. in fact, it was actually, i think, in the last year or two, a sneaker company used the betsy ross flag as a symbol. i think it was nike used it and it turned out that was no longer acceptable to use the betsy ross flag as a symbol, the original symbol of america. we've always had divisions, even in 1776 and in 1976.

this country has had divisions. but those divisions have been in the context of, i think, a widely shared belief that this nation, that this place to which many, of course, most, if not all of our forebears emigrated somewhere, then living memory was a place worthy of our admiration and worthy of our loyalty and even of our love. not unconditional, not without criticism. no one who's been married for any amount of time knows that there's that love, even the deepest love comes with a capacity. indeed, a true love comes with the capacity of criticism, of recognize shortcomings. and i, i think the deepest anxiety arises from a kind of a recognition in some ways that that has ceased at some level that we have now a growing number, indeed, a very sizable number of our fellow citizens who regard this country as so

flawed, as so deeply flawed, that it can no longer be the subject of our admiration or loyalty and even potentially critical love. and that means there's no basis for a conversation any longer. that means it eliminates the possibility of a kind of normal politics to occur, because normal politics occurs from a baseline line of a commitment to a kind of common project and a common set of beliefs. and what we really have are two fundamentally different worldviews, one of which says this project, this nation, this place, for all of its flaws, is worthy of our efforts, our shared efforts. and another which says it's fundamentally wrong. it's fundamentally wrong, it's fundamentally flawed and has to be fundamentally changed and overthrown. my last book was called regime change, and it's calls for a change of regime. but i call for a change of

regime in significant part because i think we have undergone on a change of regime, we've undergone a fundamental change in how we think about ourselves, our nation, who we are. and so i think that that's the in some ways, if i were to locate one, one locus that makes it almost impossible for us to address all these plethora of other problems international economic, politics, oil and so forth. i would have to place the spotlight on that and that issue and that question. perhaps you can give us a more sober analysis of patrick's rosy view. patrick's thank you to the to the museum, to the foundation, to jeb, to cleaves, and to all of you for coming out. it's a it's my third time in grand rapids in the last three months. and i love it here and i love coming back. so it's good to be back. i thought, what patrick said it

was quite accurate and quite profound and quite good. i think i agree with almost all of it. i was thinking of two things simultaneously. i'm not sure if they go together. so my father came over to america from the philippines after sputnik. he's a very, very young engineer. and after sputnik went up, the united states was welcome engineers from around the world. and he i think he landed in san francisco on a boat with, uh, $150 in his pocket and he had to make his way to west virginia, where he went to university of west virginia on an engineering scholarship. and he loved america. and he he was a teenager during world war two in the philippines and missed several years of school because of world war two and was forced to learn japanese. and for for him, america was literally the country that saved his life, that was promise for the future, a great force for good. he when i got the job at notre

dame, he they would go to the movies when he was growing up and i don't know, in the philippines in the 1940s that movie clips and they'd show notre dame football highlights at the beginning of the movie clips and so notre dame to so i grew up in a household that loved america that, that america was the future and, and my dad really, you know, he didn't want it. he wanted me only to learn english because he wanted me to be an american. and so my position at notre dame, i run the center for citizenship, a constitutional government. we're thinking a lot about the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence. and i've been thinking, will america celebrate america when we turn 250? and i'm not sure. and so i think a lot of our anxieties this is just to echo what patrick said, that hope and

optimism that, you know, my father came here from. we've lost that somehow. i think i think that is a cause of our anxiety. we had a naturalization ceremony here in the auditorium yesterday, and it was a room filled with people who loved this country. uh, but i can think of lots of places where i would be surrounded by people in this land, by people who don't love this country. and they won't name actual places of got some names. so let's think about this a little bit in terms of of how we got here and then how that relates to the theme of tonight's discussion about is this sort of baked into the whole american experiment that it was going to end up looking something like this? or is this an aberration and a

kind of breaking of the promise? and if so, when and how did such breaking occur? so, phillip, i'll let you go first on that one. why, that's a big question. i think back so i study lincoln and my my favorite person to teach is lincoln. my two favorite americans are abraham lincoln and clarence thomas. i guess i'm like, maybe reveals where i am on the political spectrum. george washington and frederick douglass are three and four. and when i think about when i teach lincoln. so in my class, i go from lincoln to woodrow wilson and lincoln. if you read lincoln's speeches, he's always calling us back to our ancient faith. and by that, he meant the declaration of independence. and this is how he thought we should deal with the problem of slavery. the question the political question at the time was what to

do about slavery in the territories. do you allow slavery to go in the territories or do you not? this is an 1850s and lincoln said, no, we should not allow slavery to go into the territories. there's nothing we can do about slavery in the states because it's a state questions. but we shouldn't allow it to expand. and why should we allow it to expand? because slavery and contradiction to our our ancient faith that all men are created equal. and he said that over and over. he said, we can as evil as slavery is, we can be dedicated americans as long as we believe that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction and slavery will be in the course of ultimate extinction if we retain our fundamental belief in human equality that all men are created equal. fast forward to woodrow wilson. woodrow wilson said, don't pay attention to the declaration of independence. and that change that happened in

that 50 year period, i think, is perhaps when we began to lose our ancient faith of human equality and we've forgotten the fundamental dignity of all human individuals as individuals. and now we group people in different ways and give them status are not stars. it's not status based on different characteristics. and i think that's fundamentally parasitic on under on our understanding of the possibility of brotherhood, of loyalty, of patriotism, of being one people. i think it's been going on for about a century now. as well. so we've been invited here not just to agree with each other, but but occasionally to disagree with each other. i think it's actually it's interesting to have us together because we agree on so much. i think if you were to ask us sort of issue for issue, we would find a lot of agreement. but i think phillip and i

represent two very different ways of understanding and the american past and the recent past. and in some ways, i think because we come from a place of a lot of agreement, those differences are actually kind of interesting. it's not like switching between fox and msnbc, where there's no conversation. we actually agree on a lot, as i think our first answer suggests, but disagree quite a bit on where things went wrong. and i would say that i would have a difficult time sort of giving a date or a thinker. i think it's a little bit more like the frog being boiled that it's not clear when the temperature got quite so hot. but but you can see if you look in retrospect, how the temperature was rising over a period of time. but i think in particular, that what was the title of the book that was supposed to be discussed tonight? order and liberty and liberty. order and liberty. i think this was gordon wood his book sort of honor the absent

guest. i think a lot of the difficult ds and problems of america right now go to the embattled s between these two goods. these two positive goods that i think every human being recognizes as a good it is a good is a good thing to live in a condition of liberty and a condition in which you can chart your path in which you have the ability to make decisions, genuine decisions about your life path, your family, who you will wed, where you will live, the kind of career you will pursue, but that there is also a genuine good of order. and indeed, without order there can't be any real liberty as we know. right? how can you be thought to be genuinely free in a condition where there's a lack of order? and i think in many ways the i would identify the problem of the frog being boiled as one in which the embargo has gone way

off the charts as an embrace of liberty. and i think this embrace of liberty is bipartisan. it takes different forms, but it's bipartisan. and i think it's reflected in what has been the kind of political reaction that we've seen in the last several years from across the world in the form of what we call populism today. and that reaction, no matter what you think of populism or donald trump or brexit, that reaction has been, i take it i demand for a rebalancing from people who are not experiencing liberty as a positive, good, but as if the as the condition of a kind of disorder, the liberty that has created disorder in their lives is, on the one hand, a form of kind of a radical doctrine in their economic libertarianism that has taken the form of globalization, of

outsourcing, of jobs. i don't have to tell people in michigan too much about that. the the devastation to our domestic manufacturing, which was affected through policy, through policy in washington and in the states, as well as, of course, decisions that were made by companies that that were taken in the belief that a kind of an order of a free market that didn't take into account the needs of a nation to have certain kinds of production, to produce certain kinds of goods that it's a it's an essential thing to have pharmaceutical produced in your country. it turns out that having it all produced in china may not be the best idea. so on the one hand, there was this economic liberty that caused a lot of suffering in this part of the country and in lots of other part of the country. and at the same time advanced by the the political left. there was a form of liberty, especially in the form of lifestyle, liberty to to be and express myself in whatever way i

might wish, especially in the realm of human relationships or sexual relationships. that has, on the one hand, allowed people to express themselves. but on the other hand, has demoted the central importance of the formation of families and the raising of children, which we've seen devastated as a kind of in a some an assumed way of life, especially among those who are economically the least likely to be successful in our country. in other words, in both these domains, the economic domain and in the social domain, an excess of liberty has fallen hardest on the people who are least capable financial bully of dealing with the effects of this, the acceleration of this, of course, has been vivid in the last ten, 20 years to the point now where

we see this radical divide that didn't exist at the time. i mean, the economic divide existed, but not the divide in the sense that you were either going to be successful in this world or completely devastate it. a country cannot survive when you have either a small class of people who will be successful skating above and enjoying a world of unbounded liberty, and a people who will be largely unable to swim in those conditions. i think that has led to the sense that we no longer are a country. we are no longer bound to each other. and i think unless we rebalance liberty in order in significant part by emphasize easing something that was emphasized at the time of our founding as gordon wood i'm sure would have talked about order. we're not likely to assuage this divide, and in fact, it's only

likely to get worse. i wonder if you can clarify that a little bit when you say order, are you what's the order and principle there to which you're referring or the ordering force to which you are referring? some might say, for example, that, you know, things are ordered according to tradition or the past or some might say that things are properly ordered, simply by government fiat. some might say that things are ordered by the will of the majority. so the kind of order that provides the proper restraint to liberty, what's what's the ordering principle there? how does that order occur? i don't know if we have to say these are all mutually exclusive. it seems to me we can think about these as in some respects mutually reinforcing. so i think i would be the first to emphasize and dr. paul and i were part of were part of a in fact, a still a going concern called front porch for public and online magazine that really

emphasized the essential sensuality of local forms of life, the importance of localism, the importance of feeling, roots of of being, parts of traditions, of developing memory and a sense of obligation to one's places and the people in those places. i see a network here in the second row. this is, of course, russell kirk's great themes, right? these are the this is the kind of concern, autism, that takes a kind of cultural form. you could say that conserves over time through generations, in and through people in places and with memory. this is instantiated in monuments, in plaques. around a city. i am often like to point out to students, you can tell something about how notre dame and most

institutions of changed by looking at the names of the buildings. if the buildings were named for a person, one who was somehow associated with the place because they were professor or a priest. in the case of notre dame or the college president, that was old notre dame. if its name for a donor that's new notre dame, right? so memory of the people who were who built those places. notre dame, among other things. year old notre dame has two cemetery trees. it's hard to not pass a cemetery as you enter the campus. it's a place that fosters memory. that's central. everything i've just described is absolutely central, but no less central is lore, right? we know that there can't be order without law. and law has to take the form. now, in the american system, it takes the form that it can be local law, the very local law

can be a law of the grand rapids city law. it can be county law. it can be state law. and it can be federal law. and here i would say simply as a good catholic, that the law should reflect the level that's necessary to effect that law. if you're going to be making laws about what you know, whether these streets should be one way or two way, that probably should be in grand rapids. if you're going to make a law about whether or not. apple should have a monopoly. that's probably going to need you probably need to fill up federal government. so it seems to me that you're going to need forms of authority in lots of spheres of life in order to have some form of order. but we shouldn't see these as mutually exclusive. we need to understand how these things must necessarily work together. so i'm hearing you say in part

that we're living in an era of a crisis of authority that are institutions, not just are governing institutions, but in some sense, all our institutions have lost their authority. and in part they've lost their authority because they're not performing the functions for which they are well designed. so how did that come to be? and and, you know, struck by listen to both of you. we're coming up on the summit once centennial of the declaration of independence and you know a lot of nations when they think about who they are or what they are as a nation, they'll sort of look into the deep, dark and misty past. and they'll have all these myths and, you know, maybe heroic figures or something like that or battles with america, seems to me to be the only country that locates its origins in documents. i think there's something unusual about that.

the role that documents play in our self-identification as americans is may be particular to the declaration. does the declaration give us a blueprint for a kind of diminishing of authority, or does it give us a kind of proper balancing of the concerns of liberty and order? philip you know, it's a declaration of independence. i mean, these are questions. they're they're they're huge and big questions. so. you know, the declaration is a revolution. every document it's to declare independ insists or throw over tyranny. so in that sense, it emphasizes change and improvement and it's anti-authority. on the other hand, the declaration says we're throwing off this government so we can institute a new one that will better secure liberty. so the declaration is not opposed to the law. it's opposed to unjust law or unjust rule.

and that goes i guess, to the american character, right? we are an entrepreneurial people that we don't suffer fools gladly. we don't bow to tradition. just because it's old. you know, that's that's in the beginning. so we are we still are sort of revolution free people. and i think of the great crises of america, you know, whether it's a civil war or the civil rights movement in the sixties and these were, in a way grounded in the declaration. we need to change things because there's a lot of injustice. there's just we're propositional a country that, you know, was born in original sin and in some ways, many of our problems still date to that. the problems we have, especially with race, right, that we didn't get it right at the beginning for i'm a huge fan of the founders. i think we we don't realize how blessed we are to have george

washington. and let me just sidetrack our story. in 2000 and i have one of the most interesting experiences of my life. i was invited to go to iraq to give a series of lectures on the federalist papers. so this was up in the american university in iraq, which is in sulaymaniyah, the kurdish region. we loved americans in the kurdish region. and these were i was lecturing to college students there, all 18 to 21. none of them had spoken english when they're 15. they all learned english so they could take. do you lose me. they told us that, you know, that they they all learned english so they could take these colleges classes at american university, ever. so i gave all these lectures on the american founding, kind of like what we're doing right now in iraq. and at the end of the week, they said, well, this is all the stuff about federalism. it's really interesting. and declaration of independence is really interesting.

but how do we do this? how do we secure independence in iraq? as if i knew. in a thought i had in my mind was it's like i learned it for the first time. you can't just have the federalist papers. you can't just have the declaration of independence. you also you also need. backup that backup for that. i said to them, you also need george washington. none of this worked without the character of george washington so that the documents are great and the ideals of great. but you also need great human beings. george washington could have been king and gave up power. it's a remarkable act of human virtue. abraham lincoln gave his life to serve his country.

right? martin luther king, where is that leadership now. in these times of crisis. that's what we're missing. the. yeah, go ahead. yeah. i want to push back against your question in a way. and in some ways amplify something that philip was saying and maybe push it even further, which is that i actually think one of the one of the problems that in particular, since there's, you know, where i think we all sort of self-identify as conservatives of some kind, this is all a setup, although you won't know that now from the things i said about economics, i'm not a libertarian. i'm a conservative. that that actually the emphasis

on our documents as that the founding document says that what it is we focus on as americans is actually relatively new in the sense that it is almost exclusively it has become exclusively the way that we identify ourselves as americans, that when it is when we think about what it is to be in america and we think about what the declaration says or what the constitution says, and i think it's new in part because what it was to be an american as an heir and inheritor of a certain kind of a culture and a certain set of beliefs was became attenuated. it became attenuated not because there were new immigrants. that was always the case. i'm irish, irish, catholic. and when i was a kid, we would have to sing a song, my country tis of thee in which we talked about our pilgrim's pride. now, as an irish catholic, i didn't have a lot to do with the pilgrim's pride, and yet i was singing the song talking about

my country, tis of thee, which is to the tune of god, the queen. so the god save the king. sorry, i know the updated, updated, yes. that increasing glee to be an american became identified more and more with a set of theories, with a set of abstract principles. and i'm not saying those abstract principles are wrong, but those abstract can become wrong or become problematic when they're detached from real things. and i'm thinking in particular of the praise of the declaration of and now i'll be the first to say the declaration of independence says some good things, but it also says some things that are really problematic that we are fundamentally our fundamental essence and nature, that we are rights bearing creatures, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i know this now i'm going to sound anti-american, not

anti-american. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. now, if that's what makes us common, if that's what is what we are commonly americans is, then we don't have much in common. what we have in common is that we all agree that we're all about pursuing our happiness. we all have these rights in which we do our we do our own things. these rights become detached from what we share, the communities which we're apart, the histories that we share, the deeper sense of what we have inherited. and i think back to when i was growing up, and it seems well, i guess it was half a century ago, seems almost a several centuries ago. and when we were learning what it was to be an american, we were learning primarily about the people. we were learning about the exemplars, including george washington, including listen, my children, you shall hear of the midnight rider, paul revere. i grew up in connecticut, so

yeah, the new england was a big one. we had to go to the homestead every year. we went to the homestead of nathan hale. there was, you know, the story of nathan hale. now, he was he was the good trader. the other guy from connecticut. he was the bad trader. his name was benedict arnold. we also learned about the good trader. was the trader who brought us information from the brits. the bad trader was the trader who betrayed abraham. abraham. george washington. and and betrayed the future. america for for the brits. we had to learn about betsy ross. we had to learn about all of these figures. we learned in other words, that these words and these ideas were bound up with particular people were bound up with particular histories. and most importantly, i think this is what philip was emphasizing. they gave us exemplary sort of exemplification of heroism, of

duty, of self-sacrifice, of those who gave great higher than themselves for a cause beyond themselves. now, how do you square that with a world in which what we are is the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? and that's all we are. if you drop out those figures that teach us about what it is to be committed to duty and principle and a way of life beyond oneself and beyond one's own lifetime, then what do you get? you get a lot of people like a lot of our countrymen today who are pretty much in it for themselves. so my quibble isn't with the declaration of independence. my quibble is with the way in which it and the principle of america have become detached from some deeper subset freedom that teaches us that none of these principles can possibly bring together a people and a nation without some deeper commitments and sense of

inheritance that go beyond our own lifetime, in our own selves. philip you described america earlier as a proposed nation. that seems to be a at least a little in tension. what patrick just said. it doesn't tend to. that's just what we're going to see. yeah. yeah, yeah, yeah. i think. i think our understanding of rights is a little bit more complex and a little bit more nuanced and not so individual. istock rights are just a way to talk about justice. what we owe each other. so i don't when, when i hear rights, i hear that we're a nation committed to justice, certainly imperfectly in our founding. this was our great original sin. so i don't i don't hear selfishness. i don't hear. we're only concerned with our own individual interest.

maybe rights allow that selfishness to. but we're imperfect beings. but i hear that we're committed to justice as a nation. and treating individuals as individuals of dignity, that demand to be treated a certain way because they're all children of god. so i see rights connected to duties, how we have to treat each other, how we ought to treat each other. and i think if we overemphasize the particular people, i'm the son of an immigrant. my connection to this country is through its ideals. and not everyone can connect to a certain lineage or being from new england or a certain culture. i actually think that's what makes america the land that anyone can be an american. so i, i, i don't i think it's a mistake to down downplay our rights tradition.

i think that race tradition can go awry and. awry, and it did. and, you know, i think of decisions in the sixties that you know, with pornography and things like that. and when you teach these to i was alive in the sixties, but i imagine that those justices in the sixties who were saying, look, we can't really outlaw pornography. they had no idea what pornography would be 50 years later. they look so naive now. and what we've unleashed on our children. i have three little kids and my oldest is 11, were terrified of the internet. it's impossible to raise kids today. i mean, the images they will see by accident. well, that's a direct consequence of the combination of bad supreme court decisions and a sort of corporate in

corporate profits. and the worst part of deviations from rights. so i'm somewhat sympathetic that rights go awry. but those decisions in the sixties were bad misunderstanding of rights and overemphasis. this is what i think professor deneen was saying at beginning of the evening, and i think we're paying the consequences of those misunderstandings. again, we're imperfect beings, right? these things happened. but we have to we have to correct course. did you want to respond to that or. well, i know that i disagree with my colleague about many things. i didn't realize how deep the disagreement was. yeah, no. i mean, so i don't know how you're getting home, phillip, but. but good luck. yeah. yeah. anyone going to south bend?

i mean, your thumb still works, right? no, i think it's. i think it's in some ways precisely. i mean, i think what you just said in many ways illustrates precisely my concerns, which is that. by detaching a theory of rights in some ways from its history, from the circumstances that significantly gave rise to their securing and their practice. it seems to me, isn't on coincidental to what you describe as having gone awry. so if you're going to make the claim only by in some ways bracketing the histories in order to give us the purified rights absent in some ways of stories and exemplars of those

duties, there's no we should have no surprise and no wonder that a condition in which people will claim those rights without any recognition of the accompanying duties and responsibility, fees and costs of those rights. in the declaration, i think states very clearly the what we should see as the essential history of those rights. and it's in its concluding words that are not as often invoked as the most famous ringing passages that are the most revolutionary or revolution oriented. of those words life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the concluding words are the ones in which the men who signed that document, including john hancock, whose name i still sign to this day, that's pretty good. give me a fountain pen and i can make a pretty good version of it. and to this declaration, we pledge our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor.

think about that signing your name to this document as dozens of men did, meant that they were pledging their lives. all right. so how does that comport with the idea that i have a right to my life? well, your right to your life ends when you pledge your life for a cause. and that's that's pretty interesting statement. we have a right to life, but my life is also not just worth living if it's if it's not on the terms that i'm going to lay out in this document. so right there in the document, there's no detached right to life. the man who signed this document said, i'm willing to give my life. and many did their fortunes. all of our worldly accumulations, all of us are watching our stock portfolios decline or retirement income is. we're worried about all that hope you're all invested in gold. our fortunes are declining.

perhaps imagine pledging your fortune by signing your name. and this is the one that really gets me our sacred honor. what does that mean? well, if they lose george washington's name, john hancock's name, charles carroll's name is dirt. they're the benedict arnolds of the greater british empire. forever, forever. their will be taught as if they were what we now consider benedict arnold to be. and that's, of course, the worst thing you can. you lose your life, you can lose your fortune. but to be forever remembered as a traitor and as a horrible exemplar. yeah, it is the bottom level of hell, dante. so i think this that concluding sentence of the declaration doesn't get nearly enough airtime, because what it teaches us is that these rights are only secured by the greatest form of

self-sacrifice. and these are the stories we have to tell. at the same time that we're telling the stories, or at least extolling the rights that we bear as americans. i hear you saying in part that that experiment, that project could work because the culture was already producing the kind of people who could engage in heroic acts, who recognized their duties, who possessed the right kind of virtue. and now going back to what we said at the beginning, it seems we're not producing those kinds of people. so it's as if these documents are laid over a cultural inheritance that was already working and that cultural inheritance has been spent down. how do you renew that? how do you replenish that kind of inheritance that will get people pledge their lives, their

fortunes and their sacred honors for something greater than themselves? you know, the temptation in a free society is always to think. we as individuals, we collectively, our responsibility responsible to no one but ourselves. and this temptation is as old as the hebrew scripture says, mankind has not changed. right. this is the issue of the lincoln-douglas debates, this issue in the tower of babel. it's the the deformation of the understanding of rights. let me go back to the lincoln-douglas debates. so we're having this great crisis on what to do about slavery. and lincoln, as i said earlier, says our ancient faith, all men are created equal. all men have rights. where do those rights come from?

from our creator. that is, rights are embedded in a large our natural rights are embedded in a framework of natural law. there is right and wrong moral right and moral wrong by nature. it is wrong to. treat innocent people as if they're slaves. that's what the. you can't just take someone's life. that's what it means to have a right to life. rights are a way of talking about moral right and more wrong. or what i said about justice. and so lincoln said in this great question about what to do with slavery. we have to the people can't do anything. the people have to respect the moral law. what stephen douglas said is if the people of this territory want slavery, let them have it. if they want freedom, let them let them have it. let them have it. the people. what is right and wrong? there's nothing above the

people. he literally says that. i don't care whether it kansas or nebraska have slavery, we should be democratic. the people want slavery. they can have it. the people decide what's right and wrong that is the great temptation of a free people to think that there's nothing above the authority of the people. that the people are the moral law. all of our great sins, our sins of pride as a nation, of not respecting the moral law that grounds our rights and therefore grounds or limits to our rights. and i think in some ways we've forgotten that today. i think we've forgotten it in our foreign policy. and that's another question that we can just do anything. when you think you can do anything, you get into wars you can't win.

when you think you can just do anything domestically. you don't pay attention to how your economic policies hurt the most vulnerable. you don't pay attention how your supreme court decisions make children vulnerable. it's a form of pride in not respecting a higher moral law. and it's not it's not a coincidence that we've had the decline of religion. i mean, we're we're living through one of the most interesting times. right you see this as a college professor, says lester at notre dame, it's not that young people are rejecting religion today. young people have been brought up without any religion at all. and that's a radical change change from even my upbringing. it may not be terrible.

it may be terrible. religion is one of those cultural bedrocks that reminded us that, yes, we're a free people. but there are there are moral limits to how we use our freedom. and every time we, as a people have forgotten those moral limits, our rights have been detached from moral boundaries. and we act prideful and that leads to disastrous consequences. in this case, not that i disagree with what professor munoz said. i would i would begin by placing the emphasis somewhat differently, which is not to say that the decline of religion is is not of the utmost seriousness. i just don't think that religion has declined. i just think a new religion has arisen and the new religion that has arisen is the religion of

the detached, liberated self and all that accompanies that. i don't know if some of you remember when robert bellah wrote a book some years ago, what was the title of it? well, no, no, no. that's putnam. the the the the habits of the habits of the heart. he told william you had it. it was a brilliant essay, a book. but there was one part in the book in which he interviewed a woman named sheila who worshiped sheila. she said she claimed that she was a worshiper of the religion of sheila ism. and i think in many ways that's become the dominant religion of america today, which is the religion of ourselves, the religion of the autonomous, liberated self. and the worst thing that you can confront the liberated autonomy myself with is the idea that you are not a liberated, autonomous self. you are the you are an air to a

lot of. things practices, events. ideas. philosophies that preceded your life. you are a person who is bounded by all kinds of limitations. let's just start with the idea that the language that you grow up in is actually going deeply influence how you think. you know, if you've know a second language well enough, you realize there are certain things i can express in hebrew or in german or in french that i can't say in english, but a dutch dutch. sorry, i forget where i am. those are you speak dutch? yeah. if it having to grow up in this particular limits what i can think. there are all kinds of limits in the world. and so the one thing that the religion of sheila ism or whatever your ism is, if you're the self creating self rebels

against is the idea that you are an inheritor of something. so every academic and nearly every academic institution in america, with the exception a few private colleges and the land grant universities began as religious institutions and those institutions taught the faith of their traditions. and we still have some evidence of that. calvin college maybe hope college where geoff used to teach sometimes notre dame in the catholic tradition. but of course, most of those institutions have at least for a century, disaffiliation. it claiming that they are no longer going to teach any particular religion. but if we, in fact look at what they are doing, they are teaching the new religion. and the new religion is in some ways the opposite of the old religion, whatever that might have been, the old religion, among other things, thought it was really important we should learn our inheritance. we should learn the past.

every one of these institutions required courses in history. so that you knew the past and you would know something of what it is that you inherited and what you owed. and this is what in part we've been talking about tonight. you should know what gerald ford did. you should know who he was. you should know what he represented. you should know in the ways in which he can be an exemplar, in the ways he may have fallen short. but we can't evaluate who we are unless we know something of the past. and if you walk around many of these institutions you see are buildings that are supposed to look much older than. the institutions walk around notre dame. it supposed to look like a medieval university created in 1840s. these old buildings, because it's supposed to be a paragon of the collective wisdom of the past and the most important institution above all in that institution is the library, maybe the chapel of the church, but the library, because that's where memory is stored. that's where you store the past. now, what happens when the old religion overturned and the new

religion takes its place? you don't tear down the buildings. you just put different people into them. you have the appearance of antiquity, but with a rather clean, new teaching that's taking place of those classrooms. what's that teaching? well, look at the basic curriculum of a history major these days. look at the courses that are being offered in the history department where you might still have a course required, a history. it's all about how terrible the past was. it's all about how all of the evils that have ever existed were all in the past. how it was a time of sexism, racism, homophobia, colonialism. any ism that you can imagine is all found in the past. so what's the first thing you have to start doing? well, you have to start taking the names off of those buildings. you have to start taking down the statues. you have to erase the past.

because unless we do that, we can't be liberated. we can't engage in the religion of our independent or autonomous rights bearing selves. so i think we do have a religion. i think it's a bad religion. there have been bad religions. i think it's being taught on our college campuses quite extensively. so if we want to look for something proactive to do, it would be in the first instance. well, those of you who are parents make sure you're not sending your kids to those kinds of schools. if your grandparents make sure your kids are not sending their kids to those kinds of schools, if you're donating these schools, make sure you're not donating to those kinds of programs. but more than that, we need to reclaim these institutions. and here i have to get back to your earlier question here. you might need to use law. you might need to use authority. and i'm actually encouraged to see states. this is going to now make me very controversial. but states, governors and state

legislature are saying we're not going to we're not going to embrace or permit or encourage this religion to continue on our state funded campuses. we're going to attempt to reclaim our land grant institutions. now, that's authority, and i approve of that message. with that, i would like to take some audience questions that i'd like to remind the audience that we are looking for questions and not speeches. i don't like the. good evening and welcome to grand rapids. my question is i've read that 1% of the population should know the planet enjoys more wealth than the other 99% combined and that the united states that disparity is 10%. and the bottom 50% combined. how does that affect the issues that you're addressing this

evening? thank you. all right. well, i do. i, i i'd be curious to know what how that differs from a lot of human history. i'm not sure. i mean, i don't know. i don't have those statistics on hand. i suspect for a lot of human history, wealth has been constant traded in. wealth as wealth has been. testing. i suspect wealth has been concentrated in relatively few hands for a long period of time. but that said, there have been a few times of somewhat barack wolf's relatively more fair distribution of wealth in the american context. and oddly enough, two of those times, our times about which

conservatives of a certain kind are somewhat nostalgic. one of those times was actually surprisingly, at the time of the american founding, which might surprise us, but it was a fairly middle class society, which there were a few wealthy people, but there was a pretty widespread distribution of property. it was largely in the form of farms, but people were relatively equal. and if you want a really good primer on this, there's a wonderful book called the middle class constitution, which is all about this, that at the time of the american founding, one of the things that reflected the order of america was the fact that it was a relatively economically egalitarian society, which is not to say there weren't wealthy people, but it was it was relatively egalitarian society. the point at which america becomes relatively more or approximately egalitarian, as it was at the time of the founding, is in the 1950s and the period after the after world war two. and it was a time of, of course,

immense wealth as the result of america's victory world war two. but it was also a time of a fairly strong working class movement unions for private institutions were strong. corporations were much more likely to grant. compensation, especially in the forms of benefits to workers. many of the what we think about as the sort of golden packages of that time came out of that period. retirement plans, health care plans and so forth. it was also a time though i would underscore, in fact, both of these times were a time of profound social stability. so attendant to the economic egalitarian ism of those times you had strong sense of family, community commitment to those institutions that made the lives of people strengthened in and

through their. i think in some ways what we have right now is in some ways the the reverse of both of those situations in the united states today. we have rather extreme forms of economic inequality that maybe begins to approximate, maybe not 1%, but maybe ten, 5 to 10% of the wealth of the greatest of the country. but also attendant to that profound social dislocation, as i mentioned at the beginning, especially in the in the working and lower classes where we see, you know, mortality rates in in at levels that should stagger someone in a civilized western world. right. declining lifespans among those who used to be part the backbone, the working class backbone of the american citizenry. and, of course, addictions. the kinds of social breakdown,

crime and so forth. so i, i think that the we should be working in some ways against what i would see as both of the main agendas of what i think dominate the right and the left today. and this brings me back to where i began. we should be working those who seek to rebalance liberty and order should be working against an economic order that has tended to concentrate wealth in very few. but at the same time, we should be working against a social order that it seems to me, is, if not contributing to, certainly not helping the breakdown of family, communal and associational life in america today. and in an odd way, then it would be putting america back in some ways to where it once was, and that is our rightful legacy. if we are going to be proud of something from our past.

it's a time in which we were relatively equal and had highly stable lives. whether or not you were in the upper class or the lower classes of our society. uh, the next question in the back there. thank you both for coming to our great community here. i am a member of the gerald r ford leadership forum, which is a student organization, which is pushing back against this unraveling of fundamental truths. i think that this country is built upon and you for interacting with this fantastic foundation. my question for you is i often struggle with this issue of liberty and order, and i have a profound distrust in so many institutions that we used to rely upon in this country. because through my education, i've seen how they've become corrupted by the private sector

just clear forms of profiting from a position which you should be serving. what mechanisms do you see as the solutions to rebuild, building those foundational political and cultural and social asks backs that this country was built upon? those fundamental details. i'm just curious from your from your perspective, thank you. well, i speak for my generation. i'm a gen xer. maybe you'd like you could let us take over. i'm just thankful for all that you've done. but, you know, maybe a constitutional amendment that you have to be under 65 to run for president might be where i'd start. so i'm serious. you know.

that. but. well. we we all. it's a big question. i'm catholic. catholic church as an institution is not trusted by many, and they don't deserve the trust because of the corruption of people in authority. corruption of people in authority destroys institutions fighting wars you don't win, destroys confidence in institutions. i can i answer tongue in cheek, but we've had terrible leadership in this country for quite some time. that's a bipartisan statement.

and we need better leadership in our educational institutions, in our corporations and our political institutions and our school boards. we need people concerned more for the common good than individual interest and advantage. we need policies that bring us together, not dole out benefits based on privilege status or color or orientate or what have you. and until we get. no one is talking about right now, no one in washington is talking about how we're taking money from young people, some who are unborn, to spend lavishly. it's not a financial issue. it's a moral issue. we have no right to do to future generations and no one is taking responsibility. so many of our problems are

failures of moral leadership, and it's going to require other people to stand up, to not tolerate what's going on and to take positions, responsibility. that you. both of you have discussed tonight what to do about kind of divisions between liberal identity and based politics, and also a conservative traditional value based politics. do you think possibly we could come to some reconciliation between the two by holding fast to our values while some while simultaneously attaching them to more diverse stories, perhaps learning in our education about both like betsy ross, maybe crispus attucks as symbols of the american dream. yeah, i would say the the story

is in some ways one of inclusion. i mean, the stories that i mentioned were especially since the topic tonight was about the founding. i thought it was appropriate to mention a number the figures who were central in that founding the documents didn't just arise. they weren't like mushrooms that appeared. there were people who advanced those and who made sacrifices for those and to whom precisely, as my colleague was just saying, without a recognition of the debts that we have, we're likely to think of ourselves as these self created people who then won't have any concern for future generations. i think the the core feature of what a what what constitutes a good civilization, if i can put it in those terms, is understanding that you are just you're a sentence at best in a very long story. maybe a word, maybe you're a vowel in a very long story.

and so not only do we have an as human beings to understand something of what constituted that story. and so i began at the time of the american founding, the people who helped to found that. but crispus attucks would be among those. but we would want to include whole lot of voices in that story, as certainly as we move forward. and, you know, i would hope we can include a few irish catholics that, you know, maybe once in a while, because there there are a couple it put i put in a word for my people, maybe a few dutch as well. but that the but that all of this inclusion is a recognition that we are also a part whether we get a prime spot in that story we're all a part of it. but here's the thing about part of a story. you also recognize there's a whole lot of blank pages after you that follow after your lifetime, that once you recognize i'm part of a narrative, the narrative doesn't end the day i die. it keeps going.

and part of understanding that is then to see i have an obligation to make sure that those sentences, those words, those chapters are also going to be well written in the hopes that i can pass something on. so it's telling story, not the fact that there was a past or seeking to erase it and therefore engender bring a sense of obligation to the future, a sense of what one owes as much as one. one is, one inherits. i the idea of inheritance bound to the idea of gratitude and a sense obligation to the future. so i think precisely i would agree with you 100% that this idea the the characters and who is included, of course, is going to change and alter but alter the end in the purpose of understanding that the story

continues. regan back to how time for one more of us to. thank you and again, welcome you all have really fully questions in america itself is a really big question mark. we're going back. seattle, also an immigrant and i migrated here. not for the money, not a better life, but because i come from pakistan and they both feeling was that america is a christian country and pakistan was a land of just three, 4% christians. and one frontier. here's the manifest destiny that america proximal. someone came here and the first thing that i find that americans really want the we have a lot of

church just like grand rapids he i sincerely believe the bible, but i don't think we live by the bible here. we it to some people it the is like also equality and the jesus that i know for his wife and religion did not of all the stuff that we about you know like the second coming of christ these days going on. uh, some people are talking about an individual already that, but into this reality, you know, even in the fact, you know, advice especially one question for if i'm just how do you do that? you know, like you don't mind the degrees from the christians and i mean, i mean, let's it let it good conversation amended the country of what it's wanted george washington he made a great example by not setting the

kingship but if he had also as he became the commander in chief, the president if he an almost slave of or if they from the declaration of independence saying all people are equal and they fought the british to to gain independence. yet they were keeping the blacks in slave was not the standard that and that is the standard that is giving right now you we are believing just as jesus kept saying, my kingdom is not of this world. these still believe that what he did not believe in is really he was talking about. he spoke of getting rid of servants, not very question. i think i got i think i was going okay. but they do have let me address let me address the washington

and slavery. but washington in fact, did free his slaves as he at his after he died. so an important part of the story. alexander hamilton is another hero of mine and when i think what could have been hamilton had a plan. so a hamilton i mean, hamilton's phenomenal story. right. i suppose everyone knows this because they've seen the musical, but, you know, hamilton goes from being a poor basically orphan kid in the west indies to george what's washington's right hand man and ten years is just phenomenal. and hamilton had a plan and he submitted this to washington which was arm the slave boys and have fight side by side with us and they will earn their freedom as we will earn our freedom by fighting for it together with

us. and i only think what could have happened so much earlier than it did. of course, that is part of the story of the civil war, right, in that we put two of your themes together. what animated hamilton to take up that plan, which tragically happen in part it was his recognize mission of the universal equality of all individuals, which was animate by his christian belief. i don't think you have to be a christian to believe all men are created equal. certainly not. but if you are a christian, you should believe. america is not a christian nation in the sense you have to be a christian to be a citizen or anything like that. but it is a nation where christianity should thrive, because of our dedication to the principle of human equality, our

god given rights and our commitment, religious liberty. so i see as still, despite its flaws and problems of a land of immigrants, a lamb or christianity and other religions can flourish and i think our principles still are the best way to us forward. never fully actualized. we shouldn't overlook the oppression that has happened here in. but i still believe that we live in the best country on earth. i would still want father to immigrate here, and i think that's what we have to fight for. so i'm glad you came. this country is as much yours as mine. anyone's here. but we have to fight for it together. thank you very much.

thank you very much for a very engaging conversation evening. so glad were able to come up i'd say for pinch hitters, they were pretty darn good. what do you think. hey, dr. munoz, you get a prize here and. ers right now. i'm not sure i'm going to give this one over to dr. unless he promises he's going to take phyllis back to notre dame. i'll take him to the. thank you. thank you. that's great. okay.

okay. before you leave this stage, i just want to say a couple of things real briefly. first of all, you heard a whole lot said about community, about association. we aren't just unto ourselves. we are a community. and i look at it this audience and i see that. and that's one of the reasons we really enjoy here at the fort being an institution in a community in grand rapids. so appreciates association the fact that we are tied together and, that we care for each other and that we work hard each other in this community, it's phenomenal place. i'm not from here. and so when i think about how fortunate that i am, that my career has ended up here, it really is something. and i have you to thank for that. everybody in this room, i think, feels the same way. you're what your friends afford. so of course. and because we are a community, no event. this happens in isolation a lot. people work to make something like this happy happen. i want first of all to recognize

a member of, the ford family, greg ford, who is here. thank you, sir, for being here. we have a former trustee, mark murray. i'm so pleased that you were able to join us tonight. thank you, mark. and notice your word, texas cowboy boots. we also have students who are here. our future. so much of this talk today was really concerning who is going to carry forward the torch and what kind of torch is it going to be is going to be a kind of torch that is individualistic and sort of self-seeking and ugly. is it going to be one that's more communitarian and giving and self-sacrifice saying? and i have to say that the students are here from i made a little grand valley hope albion calvin any other colleges universities here represented that i missed but thank you students for being involved engaged in conversation like this. so it means a lot to us. you are here and then we got, of

course, our great partners in the ford library and museum. we can't do this work without the national archives. we so appreciate you, brooke, and your team so this has been a wonderful evening because of all of you coming together for all the various reasons you're here. so thank you very much. drive safely.