i'm gary schmitt.

i'm a senior fellow here at aei and the cultural and constitutional program. i'm joined on this panel by two very distinguished writers, authors, thinkers. and i'm virtually blind from the late. so let me introduce our speakers peter berkowitz is the ted and diane taub, senior fellow at the hoover institution at stanford university. he has served as the director of the state department's policy staff and is executive secretary of the departments commission on unalienable. he is a 2017 winner of the bradley prize. he studies and writes about, among other things, constitutional conservativism and, progressivism in the united states, liberal national security and law and middle east

politics. he is the author and of numerous volumes with the most relevant for today's discussion. the book constitutional liberty, self-government, political moderation, another book, virtue and the making modern liberalism and edited volume renewing the american tradition. joining peter i is bryan garsten, who's a of political science in the humanities, the chair of the humanities program at yale. he is author of saving persuasion a defense of rhetoric and judgment, as well as articles on political rhetoric and deliberation. the meaning of representative government, the relationship of politics and religion. and brian is now finishing a book called heart of a heartless world. the examines the ethical, political and religious core of the early 19th century liberalism in the united and france. maybe and updated for this

century. his writing has won numerous, including the first book prize, the foundation of political theory section in the american political science association. he has served as director of the undergraduate studies for yale's major in ethics, politics and economics and the director of graduate studies, the department of political science and of no less importance for today's discussion. in 2016, he founded the organization's an effort citizens thinkers writers program for students in the haven public schools. and with that, i'm going to turn microphone and the podium to peter. okay. first, i too want to say thank you to you, yuval adam, 13. it's good to be on a panel with. two old friends, gary and brian.

today, i'm going to briefly enumerate three common misconceptions about declaration of independence put forward grand historical claim, and then once again briefly enumerate six enduring lessons surrounding the declarations. but a little background and all of that in 10 to 12 minutes. and we need appreciate i think that the us declaration of independence changed the course of democracy. the west before the and the creation of the united states before the declaration, the creation of the united states democracy had a bad was thought to a regime that was prone to descent into demagoguery and dictatorship.

after declaration of independence, after the birth, the united states and democracy acquired a good name. it became a an essential ingredient of political justice around the world. how did that happen? it happened in significant measure because of the alliance that the declaration of independence, right between. young democracy and rights, fundamental rights, natural rights, as they're called in the declaration of independence, unalienable rights. that alliance was so successful, as in a way gordon wood has pointed out that the alliance itself acquired the name democracy. but there's a cost in that. and my judgment, simplification. the cost is that we lose sometimes of the tensions within

the regime that i think is more accurately liberal democracy. we lose sight the tension between rights and democratic government. we also lose sight of the advantages that a regime enjoys because it protects, because affirms that rights are shared by all and it because protects them and as as the previous panel indicated and as as gordon wood indicated as well, i think we would benefit greatly by a serious return to the study of the declaration of independence. yes, indeed, i would put it at the center of of civic, which is liberal education. and in so doing i think that could help temper some of the division, the discord and the dysfunction of american politics today before i get to my lists,

clarify a few terms that vindicate these elements this liberty i've i've suggested that our regime more precisely because democracy liberal and liberal democracy of course denotes freedom democracy of course comes from as a greek compound two elements the people rule it doesn't follow from the idea that people rule that they will protect individual rights. all majority can be liberal or not. majorities can provide the poor or not. majorities can choose to rule directly or indirectly. they can also choose to respect rights that are shared equally by all. that's an achievement you could call it also in innovation the united states as as abraham lincoln would many decades

later, was first regime ever anywhere that was brought into existence based on this universal claim. we've already spoken about how the declaration understood these certain self-evident truths and it's having mansfield what's them self-evident half. first i want to say about the the truth of the declaration that they arise out of the merging really of three at least three traditions. one is the biblical tradition shared widely at the time the american founding, which and this biblical tradition at its founding mission taught that all human are created in god's image. that, and i think perhaps the most significant teaching in the

west about about equality. this idea was shared widely and overwhelmingly protestant america in the 18th century. second, of course, the civic republican tradition emphasized and engaged public spirited citizens, citizens henry that would be involved in the and up to and including fighting for its freedom and the third tradition is let's call it the modern tradition of freedom the core conviction of the modern tradition of freedom is that human beings are by nature, free and equal. this was not a central view in greek democracy. this was not a central view in the world of the medieval world. and you might say i would say it's implicit the biblical view, but it only articulated it is only affirmed as a principle.

the founding of a nation for the first time with the united. by the way, what are these self-evident truths that are listed on in the declaration that we are equal in? one most important respect in terms of unalienable rights in many ways and in a variety of ways are unequal. but in this crucial way, equal a second self-evident truth. government's purpose is to secure these rights. its primary. third, just adjust government. our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and the final one. when government proves destructive of these ends, the end being securing our liberty, people may alter or abolish government that secures rights. i want to say something about. philosophical foundations. picking up on some remarks of daniel.

it's true that the declaration of independence indicates, you might say metaphysical or theological foundations for for unalienable rights. the that all human beings share. but the declaration of independence also points away them to this formulation. we hold these to be self-evident. it's a funny formulation. it's a kind of not double in daniel sense the double another sense you can assert that something self-evident we hold to be self-evident. what i think is indicated by saying we hold to be self-evident is that these beliefs are widely shared in america today. we may have differences, we may have philosophy differences, but we, the people do in fact hold them, by the way, consistent. the point that bryan makes in his paper about burke, his speech on conciliation, on on

americans, on america. burke that the love of freedom is the predominant feature of the american sensibility and. i think that's right okay so those are the self-evident truths metaphysical are pointed to but also emphasized is that there we do in fact affirm them in circles these days for some time a variety, in my opinion misconception persons have been promulgated and become popular. i mentioned three. one is a of disdain and dismiss strategy and one finds versions of it on the right and on the left. the right wing says that that unalienable rights, the declaration's unalienable are

based on false. false and pernicious conception, that produces radical individualism atomism and a demand pure freedom that's an unrealistic and destructive desire to be free of all constraints subject to no authorities. the left version also says that the declaration's view is based on a false, permanent and pernicious. but this time one that perpetuates races and sexism and sweeping inequalities in wealth, status and that one strange aspect of these misconceptions is that actually the declaration of independence. of independence is unalienable truths actually protect that goods affirmed by both right and left that individual rights limited government, which they

require are actually the best security for commune for for parents control over the education of their children and for the opportunities of people in a diverse society to pursue what. they regard as as the demands of god or their understanding of human excellence and the virtues. similarly similarly for for the left america made extraordinary strides. it's now 200, 250 years of history and including more and more people and enabling more and more people to enjoy the benefits of rights. the second error call it the rousseau gambit. it radicalized the notion of tacit consent. it's also assumed by the declaration, and it ascribes

democratic supremacy to and public policies that intellectuals have derived in the privacy of their study or or their seminar rooms, saying that democracy has a certain logic and structure. we, the intellectuals, can it. and those poor people who often go to the ballot box and vote for measures of which we disapprove, those people, those majorities are anti-democratic. we are more democratic. by the way, those majorities may be wrong, but it is a great to call the preferences of majorities. it's another good reason for distinguishing or speaking of liberal democracy, that majorities can in illiberal directions. and the third misconception i think, is is the re founding fallacy. and it supposes that if one founding was good, many re

founding be wonderful. but but this i think this way of thinking fails to take seriously the high bar that the declaration sets for founding. and that is if you find yourself the declaration's language an absolute despotism that irreversibly destroys the conditions for exercising basic and fund of fundamental freedoms. then it's time for revolution or re finding re founding. and also the fascination with re founding also blurs the the declaration's distinct and between between principles that are enduring and ordinary legislation and, ordinary reforms. it also erodes commitment and gratitude for what was achieved in 1776. so much for misconceptions.

three misconceptions want to say something now briefly about about that one historical claim i mentioned historical claim the grand historical claim is this the time and again eminent reformers in the american political tradition have advance the cause. individual, individual freedom and equality law by drawing on the declaration explicitly by and by doing this, they effectuate and vindicate it rather than replace, rewrite or revolt against america. 17 1776 founding. what do i have in mind very briefly, in 1848, elizabeth cady stanton's declaration of sentiments is in essence a rewrite of i said rewriting is a restatement of the principles of

the declaration of independence. but with respect to women making the argument that all those individual rights are of necessity ours to in other words it not an overt overthrow of the declaration of independence, but a fulfillment of the promise of the declaration of independence writing in the 1850s, frederick douglass and william lloyd garrison make same argument writing in the 1860s. so abraham lincoln, right? sorry douglass and garrison and lincoln against slavery. what is necessary is not an overthrowing of the declaration's ideas overthrow of the constitution what is necessary is at last living up to them. or, as lincoln says at gettysburg a rededication to to the principles freedom as spelled out in the declaration. and now rapid fire. six notes enduring lessons that i think will that would enable

to better grasp uphold the principles the declaration and improve an america that's dedicated to them. i will just assert them here. one lesson comes from we can learn from facilities democracies. achievements are bound up with a common heritage that shapes citizens and unites the people. we mustn't forget that in upholding the principles of the declaration. a second lesson comes from plato that democracy encourages vices that undercut the people's rule. a third lesson from aristotle to enjoy the benefits and contain the flaws of democracy. democracy must be combined with other just if partial and complete claims to rule point that was made in a different way by gordon wood fourth, a madisonian.

three endemics cratic regimes must find means for countering democracy is characteristic elements, and these measures must be consistent with the people's and consistent with the limits on government imposed individual rights. fifth, tocqueville gives us lesson the political freedom offers a vital counterweight to the vices spawned by democracy, not least of the opportunities it provides to exercise self-government outside of formal political institutions. and finally, a lesson. one of the reasons that that free and democratic societies need to vigorously protect of speech is because free democratic societies need, a healthy progressive party and a healthy conservative party that is a healthy party that's focused on improvement and a

healthy party that's focused on preserving. it would be good if each one of us could do both, but such are the complexities of political life that we need to. we generally need specialize. i'll by suggesting that no small part of the discord and dysfunction of the present moment comes from failure of our educational system. no small part of the failure of educational system has to with civic education, the true, the true and complete civic education in a free and democratic nation is liberal education and liberal liberal education in america would put back at the center a study the declaration of independence, meaning the principles of freedom and the constitution. that was to institutional lives those principles. thank you.

it's a real pleasure to be here to be part of this really important marking of a moment in the american history. so let me thank a i mean, you've all and all the others involved in this for including look, it's only to wonder after 250 years how long this will last. you know, machiavelli and the renaissance famously imagined the possibility of a perpetual republic. but the most reliable prediction about any country or any state of affairs at all is the one that lincoln grappled with at the end of a speech in wisconsin in 1850, when he remarked on the saying, this, too, shall pass

away. it's doubtful that country has finally discovered an escape from that ultimate fate, but still even if we were to begin with fatalistic, long term, we might. at what stage in the life of our country we where do we find ourselves today? because if the united states were to last, for example, as long as ancient sparta did, this hundred and 50th anniversary, would mark not even halfway through lifetime, it's possible that future historians will look back and regard of our political struggles and disappointments as merely one crisis among many, perhaps part of the last part of the first working out of the principles of the founding. after all in 1852, when the country was just 76 years old, it must have seemed to many observers that the american experiment was nearing its end.

the republic had failed to fully enact its founding ideals was on the verge of a bloody civil war. but as frederick douglass, who had the most reason to know, the country's failures, to assert the hypocrisy of the declaration asked his audience and eight year he asked his audience to imagine a longer history a future for the country. there is consolation, he said, and the thought that america is a young so the question for us is whether we can still conceive of america as young. and in my for this volume i suggest that it may be easier to think that way if we rediscover a feature of democratic politics that was once familiar but is now less often. and that is a tendency democracies to fall into cycles or patterns of institutional

dysfunction, popular discontent followed by reform now stated in that way. the point is familiar and they seem bland. but it seems to me that given the patterns of history, the way they deserve promises to free us from some of the dangerous silly self-fulfilling disappointment that can arise from the expectation of a simpler more direct movement in the direction progress. even those who hope that the cycles of discontent and reform spiral upward to follow the arc of the moral universe towards, justice can recognize that is a certain rhythm to democratic that must be anticipated and accommodated, that can't eliminated entirely, but perhaps can be tamed constitutional. and whether we view the fits and

starts of democratic politics as ultimately progressive or merely cyclical or as having some other distinctive rhythm, we can begin to try to situate ourselves in what the political scientist, my colleague stephen skowronek, has called political time and what i want to think about today is the role that a certain political passion plays in establishing this rhythm of democratic politics and the passion i want to focus on today is the spirit of independence. after all, what does the declaration declare it? independence. now, in recent times, supporters of democracy focused on the importance of equality and solidarity and, mutual interdependence have sometimes thought it necessary to diminish the importance of the spirit of independence because the spirit

of misunderstood can convince us that. we can go it alone and may to pull in the opposite direction from solidarity and equality. but in practice, of course, the declaration of independence declared, that this spirit of independence and simultaneously a commitment to equality and serve the function to produce a new solidarity has been discussed already today. so in my time here i just want to briefly touch on the points that i make in this paper. one about the spirit of independence in its sources in america too, about its relationship to equality. three about the way that the declaration itself it was hoped by jefferson and later by lincoln could remind us of the spirit at various moments in, the rhythm of politics and the rhythm of our history and. then lastly, about how this

rhythm, these dynamics of politics might be changed in a constitutional framework. so first, the spirit of independence and its sources. when we think about political passions, might think, well, there's the passion rule. there's the passion to rule ourselves as a subspecies. and that. and we'd also have to say there's a passion to be cared for, which is often attractive to us as well. the of independence is distinct from. both of those political passions. the spirit of independence is episodic. it can be fierce when it erupts, but it's not often sustained for long. the spirit of independence is often reactive we feel when we bristle at rule unfairly imposed or imposed or clumsily, there's

a kind of indignation that propels us to take to the streets to demonstrate against the latest, though, if we then retire happily home for dinner that night, we see the weakness of the spirit and its constructive capacity a stronger version of the spirit of independence might propel a people who fight a revolution it also propels in a different way. those who oppressive regimes, revolutionaries and refugees both act from the spirit of independence often in bursts of determination. but if they are successful breaking the bonds, they feel as oppressive soon find themselves in a new political situation, wondering how to replace institutions and practices that had structured their old lives and the spirit of independence alone is not especially helpful and that next task has that spirit has played its part. it's fueled the take off. you could say from the planet's surface, but the rest of the journey must rely on other

political passions. and so people might think this spirit should be relegated to the founding moment alone, the this takes the form of arguments that. the declaration was essentially a declaration from europe, from great britain, and that it's a mistake to somehow it as relevant legislative for subsequent part of our history. but it seems to me that the spirit of independence recurs and ought to recur in our history. and it seems to me that to capture what was distinctive about the declaration, we could we should focus on this spirit and not on equality alone. although in the end, independence and equality are related. but the particular character, americans, as noted by edmund burke, for example, in speech he

made on conciliation with the colonists, the particular spirit the americans was always seen to be independent to the point of being anarchic anarchic. anarchy is found tolerable, but remarked of of people in massachusetts. and he cited a number of sources for this, particularly independent character of americans. a history of revolt against essentially imposed taxation. be sure. and also importantly, the strength of protestant separatism and the northern colonies. and so i, i do think it's interesting to note that the very independence really took on its meaning and its connotations in the previous century when it was still importantly a description of a certain protestant set of churches who refused subordinate themselves to any central ecclesiastic authority such as rome, the

anglican church, even presbyterian governing bodies, the independence thought each congregation should stand on its own feet and govern itself often in a more or less democratic fashion. and there were independent writers going back to john wise, for example, a minister from ipswich, massachusetts, who gained fame. you know, a century before the events. describing today for his pamphlets opposing centralized authority. so that's one source worth looking at for the particular independence of this country. another i would point to, burke does not mention, but for more than a century, much more than a century, these colonists lived alongside native americans and were impressed by astonished by the of what they thought of as anarchy in those tribes. independent like john eliot and

roger works to convert those tribes to christianity, but also learned their languages, wrote books about them, and were impressed, in a way, by contempt. the natives had for the hierarchies and submissions of european society. some of these independents went to england, where in the circles right. cromwell, during the english civil, and then came back to the states. and so some of the influence that we think of as from those circles around the english civil war was actually itself influenced by example of these indigenous societies thought of, especially as independent. and even jefferson had no consistent friend to the native population indicates in letters. well, for example, writing to someone named edward carrington in 1787, i'm convinced that the societies as they indians which live without enjoy in the

general mass and infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live the european governments. he says the european governments to divide us into two classes wolves and sheep. i do not exaggerate, he wrote. this is the true picture of europe cherished. therefore, that spirit of our people and keep alive their attention. so amongst the sources of the particular american independence, this, these and lists others as. now what is the relation between and equality? a famous question many scholars have asked. let me just say, because i need to keep things very brief that they the answer to that question is related to. the question of how americans became people, not just how the different colonists one people, but how did think of themselves in the declaration as a separate people from the british people?

what made that possible. it didn't occur in a moment, but it require that thinking of themselves as as independent from the society the people of the british and therefore capable of declaring themselves a new people and the equality in dependance come together as prerecord units of the idea that could describe as not part of a people that you had been born into and that you had been a part of. after all, you can't simply imagine yourself part of a separate people unless you had a sense of some prior independence. the possibility of independence. let me make this point about the rhythm of politics that follows from the spirit of independence. sometimes we are told that the

declaration set out a standard equality and that we have made progress towards it. and there's certainly some truth in that. but it's interesting that lincoln, who did much to establish the declaration as the founding of this, not just for the republican party, but for all americans like lincoln saw history a bit differently. he thought that we had fallen behind where we had been in the founding moment, especially on the question of slavery, and that there was a tendency in fact, of democracies to generate a form of corruption. and the purpose the future use as, he said of the declaration of independence that he envisioned was to remind. when we had fallen away from those founding ideals of what they were.

it's he wrote the declaration's authors meant to be thank god as it is now itself a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism they. the founders knew. the proneness of prosperity to be. and they meant when such reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them. at least one heart, not to crack. springfield, 1857, replying dred scott and douglass. and he wrote elsewhere that was what would make the 4th of july something more than just as he wrote in a letter a day burning firecrackers. so he presumed that the rhythm democratic politics would generate a form of tyranny and despotism, corruption, and that we would need efforts of reform.

and he hoped that the declaration, with its spiritedness, would help to provoke that reform. now, of course, there's a worry that the declaration inspires constant dissension isn't it a recipe for constant dissatisfaction? won't it generate perpetual dissensions and contests as the tories, jonathan and the butcher wrote leading up to the revolution, but again, there's a rhythm here that presumed in lock and in the declaration, and the rhythm assumes we tend to stay, in our old forms, we tend to pile up the satisfactions until a long train abuses mounts. that is, the people tend to be conservative and that. as jefferson in the declaration means that mankind more disposed to suffer, while evils

sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. now, if you think that's true, then it also suggests a certain rhythm to our politics corruption bits of tyranny and despotism will pile up, and then episodically, episodically, the spirit of independence will rise up and, make a correction. so that suggests again, not steady progress, not a predictable cycle of the sort you find in ancient thought, but but nevertheless certain rhythm to american politics. and the last remark i would make is that the constitution can be thought of as an effort to tame and manage that rhythm. so we don't have to have, as jefferson sometimes suggested, we should new constitute conventions, new revolutions, new blood, every generation. but we can have risings up

through elections and campaigns and new regimes altogether of of parties, new parties, maybe even. and that work of trying to manage and constitutionally the messy rhythm democratic politics is a different way of thinking about a constitu and than thinking of it as trying to establish once and all a set of ideals and, put them in a sort of static place over the past few decades, with weakening of the parties, the expansion of campaigns throughout the calendar, the cadence of politics changed. but if we step back from the tumult of the moment, we can certainly still sense an oscillation between periods of quiet and declarations of independence of different kinds and some wish we had less acquiescence. others might want more stability. but the ebb and flow of political energies associated with a spirit of independence

continue in a recognizable pattern, whether these tides will continue to be contained within the dams and --, the constitu and the parties have established or whether they will burst out and, slump the whole landscape is a question that looms. i think of our celebration of this anniversary. thank you both. those were impressive and thoughtful presentation. a few years ago at a i a program that dealt with among things civic education. and then of course like many of you know in this and and others, obviously the amount of knowledge about founding and declaration independence is really quite poor among the

students and they've been tested years and years and it's the same same result. but one of the things that came to mind after i sort of was diving all this material was that these students they go to high school and then they go to college and then they walk out the door. and as adults, they immediately begin to assert, you know, we have these rights. i have this right, you know, and also that, you know, the agenda fixing the inequalities and the like. and at the time, i was thinking, you know, that, you know, somehow the declaration events have become sort of, you know, part of our civic dna, even if people didn't know how to articulate it properly. and the other analogy i thought about was they know the tune of the declaration, but they don't know the words and that also led me back to this other issue that

we looked at was the teachers of folks in high school doing civics and government themselves were not particularly knowledgeable and of course why weren't they knowledgeable because their teachers were not very knowledgeable. you know how to understand to think about the declaration of independence, all of which is sort of a long introduction to i want get back to these misconceptions the declaration and, the principles i guess you know, having worked on the commission, you know, firsthand experience about all the varieties of you know arguments and of course teaches you college students. so the first question was of these misconceptions, of these, which is the most prevalent, do you think? and then secondarily, what do think is the most serious, which are not the same?

obviously. first, i'd like your distinction between knowing the words and knowing the music, but i would say that the real problem no, not reverse, is that everybody. of course, acquire a certain sense of freedom entitlement to do what he she wants. because we live under institutions but the people sing the tune of key today because they don't know the words and don't really know the tune of the misconception since i mentioned. it seems to me by far the most serious is the disdain and dismiss as i mentioned, you see versions on the right and the left. you see first on the right and, not everybody who goes these names and these categories, good conservatives and national conservatives, but some of the most prominent spokesmen for these these schools of thought

insist that all of the ills from which we suffer today are derived from. they will say john locke. when they say john locke, they mean the same principles that are affirmed the in the american declaration independence summarized in that assumption which is intended to be for that sublime truth, which is both descriptive and moral that human beings are by nature free and equal, they say produces out of control, individualism, a belief that not just the day of rights, but i have one big right to be free. every kind of every kind authority. this undermines community it undermines respect for the past. and we see the left wing version, which i mentioned a, that well, there are two versions of it. one is a fairly straightforward marxist critique. marx sets it forth and on the jewish part, one upon the jewish question that is the protection

of individual rights creates these domains in which we can accumulate property and bad or in which we can we can practice faith of our parents. very bad, because these involve delusions and take us away from true human emancipation. but there's now a more view that's been popular on the west that it's an instance of is the 1619 project that the principles themselves are defective or they're just a cover for racism, ethnocentrism, ethnocentric ethnocentrism, another forms of oppression. so disdaining dismiss seems me the most prevalent in the most serious. it says the principles were poisonous you you need new principles and in my experience these arguments made in and in

colossal ignorance of what these where these principles came from, what they actually declare how they were intended to be elaborated and wholly disconnected from the moderation and the prudence with which they were developed by by locke, by montesquieu, with which were announced in the declaration of independence and institutionalized in the constitution. i would say that i mean i certainly agree with most of what's just been said, but i would say in working with and teenagers especially pieties don't work. and so one challenge for us is how to harness what is often a genuine desire to be on the side of justice and our students, how

to educate desire, how to make the declaration and the prudence of of that and other founding documents new for a new generation how to bring it alive and that and i think sometimes finding particular stories that they haven't heard before particular or particular moments and bringing them inside a historical moment, asking them what they would do, how they would balance the particular issues front of them is a way to snap students out of kind of a tendency to generalize and with when you generalize, you do tend to fall into the ideological patterns that dominate in the moment. and we need to have faith in the declaration and, the constitution, and not a blind

faith, but a faith that they actually still do represent and ideas, ideals that can attract, in fact, new generations of people to them. and i think the last thing i've been having some experience in new haven just a little bit, just a taste of discussions with refugees who come here from elsewhere. it's a an amazing group to talk with and their perspective on some of these questions as concrete and different from what's found in any canned history and full appreciation for liberty, equality and that sort of thing. it was fun to brian's comments. one, i agree entirely that teenagers do not like to be lectured to actually in that

respect. the most they're like most human beings, and these days though my experience is that exposing them to some simple, straightforward truths about the declaration of independence is itself a radical and shocking act, exposing them to some of the facts about the declaration does does open their eyes so that's one tactic i found in the same spirit. second, i've also had some remarkable experiences with not just immigrants. i can remember seven or eight years ago i talked to long, two week long seminar from political activists, from myanmar. the english was in, but they were they were very eager to learn. it was a seminar on america's founding principles and some of them had paid a heavy price, some of them about a third of those students, 20 somethings, had spent some time in jail for

demanding freedom. one of the students at the at the closing event and came up to me said these seminars have meant a great deal. we none of us really knew what democracy freedom meant. but it wasn't very important for us. we knew to find out more about it and we need more of the spirit of of the immigrant. of course, that often comes from having the experience of the opposite of democracy and freedom, that gives you a better of of the blessings of the united states. so in your list of political thought and thinkers. you mentioned. tocqueville. yes. just to be a little bit contrarian, it is interesting that tocqueville, when he writes the greatest book on democracy, america, the doesn't mention the

declaration of independence. i mean what are what are we supposed to take from the fact that he obviously knew about the declaration and he praised jefferson to the sky about being the apostle of democracy. so is there something about the declaration that tocqueville thought either not necessary or that was to be avoided or just assumed that it was not something that had to be talked about. you know, i actually don't know a story about you're the yale. i don't know in particular, if you ever wrote anything about the declaration would say at that point it was still it celebrated, but often in a more partizan way. but it wasn't lincoln hadn't yet done the work of making the declaration that the founding of the whole country it was you.

in the 1857 speech. i believe there's, a passage in which he says democrats to that this should be of interest to you because he was trying to do that work. so when tocqueville was it was, you know, well well before. and so as to it does mention the document, the love of liberty. it suffuses democracy in america and tocqueville emphasized that a particularly in a democratic age, we need to be lovers of liberty. and the liberty that he envisaged is the liberty that is a in the declaration of of independence. it's that love of liberty that allows us you could call it america's republican. you could call it smaller republican. you could call it its democratic moment. it's that liberty that that americans exhibit forming

associations and writing newspapers and pursuing their faith. so while the document is not the ideas of the document are are central to his analysis without liberty, individual liberty americans would not be able to maintain their, maintain their communities and maintain their nation. it does seem to separate out liberty from equality. i in the sense of equality the origins, seem to be as you suggested, some were tied christianity that breakthrough that men are somehow equal in the sight of god and then on the liberty front to pick up point you made the points you know sort of protestant new england as this kind of the source for that so anyways strikes me as a useful qualification in about sort of thinking about the declaration and just, you know,

immediately dropping john locke, you know, as a source of american liberty and equality equality. so bryan, what i always think about the sort of cycle that you're talking is sort of what i refer to as the steam kettle view of american politics is, you know, things kind of boil along, simmer, simmer, simmer. and then, you know, the you know, the the top pops off. and there's, you know, two ways that seem to be address issue. one was, you know, sort as you point out, the american institutions that are designed to sort of capture the moment and allow, you know, the changes to be made. but then you have jefferson and and lincoln. i would say that are much more concerned about this has to be captured by changing opinion

before. you deal with the institutions. and that brings me back to the i guess, the divergence in the founders, you know, jefferson's arguing that, you know, a revolution every couple decades is the way to go versus obviously somebody like hamilton and even madison that the institutions really to be at the center of the process and so i guess any comments or how do we think about i mean, there's this interesting sort of rebuttal to jefferson in the federalist papers. i think it's around 50. is it 49, 50, when. i madison replies that you know, this moment of founding as in i think he says something like an experiment to take a nature to repeat, you know, that there are certain facts about having just fought a war about the unity that comes with that moment that

this goes to peter berkowitz this point about the danger of thinking one can have re. very often in a healthy way. so so that's why i speak of trying to tame or manage this rhythm so that one doesn't have to have full on revolutions every generation and yet they're still meant to be quite a bit of for upheavals certain kinds. brian just reminded me of a lecture i heard a long long time ago at harvard. i think we were both there as but given by the great music critic stanley crouch. and the title was something like how blues and the jazz how the constitution is like blues. and the jazz and jazz. and his argument was that blues and jazz are the only form world historical music that incorporate into them

improvising nation oh, you're a musician, but in any case, you may know of that tune up as it so, crouch contended. and he added, and the constitution is maybe the first. the founding document that incorporates improvization. so you distinguish brain between constitutional ideas and the messy messiness of politics. one could argue that the to those ideals are what anchor and allow messy politics. and when you need to do something fundamental. constitution actually incorporates a mechanism in article five for making a change to the laws, the land so. so i think it's fair to say that the part of the genius of the founding document is to is to do justice to the need for for both ordinary change new policy is getting out on the streets, electing new people throwing the

bums out, protesting but also opportunities for big change. a rewriting and it's made very by by the constitution and so maybe we're maybe have actually good institutions and the. is developing the character that enables us to take advantage of those institution. and i mean i do think there's a cycle and rhythm to reform in the american history. and i i'm very taken with brian's formulation of it. but seem stuck right now. and the is it the are the themselves not up to sort of the disruptions and the problems that we face or? is it something else that's going we don't have to choose? it could be both could be both institutions and carries carter these days at character and

character formation educate nation my worry is that a lot of our failures today stem not from they stem both but i'm especially concerned about the failures of education which i think impair our ability to take advantage of our institutions notwithstanding the need for institutional reform. i mean i think we should study carefully the institutional side as well. why is it that they are not channeling our controversies in a productive way at all? i think we should distinguish it. it's important to appreciate our actual constitution as it is. there's also though something else to appreciate is sort of one level up and abstraction which is the sort of constitutional thinking that

went into that document. what sorts of. kind of long medium and long term problems were they thinking about when they designed those. do we have an adequate appreciation of, the functions that they thought the constitution should play, not just a list of rights that we want everyone to achieve, a way of managing politics. and if we if we have that, then we can look at how particular parts of the institutions congress informal parts, our constitutional setup like parties which are not in the constitution but have have kind of grown up in the interstices of it. if we can think about the functions that that a constitutional system needs play, we can then i think try to get a handle on why our current institutions are not doing the job. and we may find that their character, education problems, but we may also find that features of the contemporary world have made it more

difficult for these institutions to do that work, in which case. without being dismissive of what we have we should be willing to think again for ourselves about the article five possibilities. are there things should be changed? not lightly, but deliberately. we some time for i know i can sort of do this and sort of say who's got their hands raised. so we have some time for questions. so let's begin right here. please identify yourself. hello. can you hear me? i'm tom cleveland at the jack miller center for teaching america's founding principles and history. so i'm very interested in this conversation. peter, you were you made a claim that civic is liberal education or is rooted in liberal legislation. and one important element for an american citizen to study would

be the declaration which makes good sense to me. but if it's liberal education, it seems you're indicating not just narrowly studying something like the declaration you referred to, plato and aristotle said it is. and and so forth. so i guess for both you supposing that civic education is, liberal education or requires it, why would that be the case and how broad are you thinking that education needs to be to be a responsible citizen? if i planted a question, i could thank you for. you remember the inflections the revolution in france. burke suggests our affections develop first in the family, then through the community, then to the nation, and maybe more broadly, similarly for liberal education. first of all, what is goal of liberal education is to prepare for freedom. how to prepare someone from freedom, and for the moment to

restrict itself, to the capstone liberal education, which is, let's say, college education, although k-through-12 ultimately justified, it seems to me preparation for freedom. so it seems to me at the core of a preparation for freedom is is a decent acquaintance. the principles on which one one's own political society is based, those are political principles. those are economic. those are principles of jurisprudence, even principles of of international law. but america is based on more than that. we have a great inheritance, literary inherit, philosophical inheritance, religious inheritance, great events have shaped us from the classical world and the medieval world, the the reformation, the renaissance reformation, the industrial revolution, all that

you might say as part of a quiring self-knowledge. but i wouldn't stop there because of course, as aristotle teaches, all serious study of politics is comparative politics. and so the continuing ascent requires us to understand ourselves and our own society requires, us to understand other ways. organizing human affairs, meaning other cultures and civilizations. so liberal education also of necessity, requires a study of other civilizations make one. one final point in this, this and possibly brief the spirit and watch in which in which educates is also crucial to liberal education and if if the great books, great ideas, great events that have defined the west are taught dogma. students will not be prepared for freedom.

the job of the professor is to improve students understanding by transmitting knowledge, helping the understand the arguments on. the different sides of these matters in so doing think only a apart from the knowledge. that's that's conveyed apart from the independence mind that is cultivated, so too will tolerance and civility be be cultivated. i would just mention to things. it's a difficult question because there's the issue of whether citizens perspective is the only one that a liberal education communicates. of course, there's another human perspective. socrates was a good citizen, but

also somehow separate from the citizens perspective. so that's a complication, i'd say. and a second point going, since you mentioned tocqueville, there's the formal education in schools and universities there's also the education that comes with what we do all day, every day. and our practice. that means that the workplace and our home communities, our schools, that's how we are educated as well and paying attention to the organization of those places also has enormous implications for character and habits and and knowledge. tom, your check's the mail back here. hi there. my name's colby wicker. i'm an undergraduate student at indiana university and this is sort of a broader that i've been

pondering throughout the panel is this morning. if 1776 250 years ago marks the beginning of our republic, we spend a lot of time spend a lot of ink on the declaration of independence. i wonder if it's also worthwhile to look at some of the issues that we were dealing with simultaneously that time, the two other issues that the continental congress was was dealing with was our international relations with france. and also the way that we ought to govern ourselves. there was a committee that dealing with drafting the articles of confederation. are there any lessons that we learn from those other two committees? in addition to the many lessons that we can draw from the declaration? well, i would say briefly that the international relations part is really crucial and i think there's a tendency sometimes i'll say in my field, in political theory, to think of the united states as a because

we use the word democracy, to think of it as athens. but, you know, we compromised having a representative system and we're a lot larger. but the truth is that. as the argument of the federalist papers clear the republic have always been small and faced a foreign policy, which is that they are weak, they are prone to be conquered by empires, which is what happened, of course, to athens. and so how can they manage that problem? or one strategy is to construct a of republics. but then how do you manage that federation and the of confederation were an effort to get at that question and really constitution if you read the ten federalist papers was also an effort to answer that foreign problem that as machiavelli noted all republics have always confronted.

so the question of how to build strong republics in a foreign policy sense, i think was was was crucial. yes, one would make a great mistake from if you take all these conversations together and think that i think any of us are asserting what we need to do is replace the education have with an education that revolves around declaration of independence by. the declaration of independence is very important. but the declaration of independence is one very big item among, many very big items that tend to be neglected at our colleges and universities. you mention them. and picking up where bryan left off. i mentioned to other huge that tend to be neglected and yet they've been constitutive of humanity from the beginning. war and faith.

i think. so we of course, have to say the of independence, by the way, we should say the revolution, war battles. and we should understand the beliefs that played such an important role and in shaping political thinking and by the way, in shaping political and this is not inconsistent with. recognizing the importance of john, the importance of montesquieu, the importance of the common law. it's beginning to recover some of the complexity of who we are and where we came from. yeah, i would just do a small footnote. it's useful to remember that we were actually as a young country, surrounded by imperial powers and professor wood pointed out so much of the fairless agenda was trying to create a national government that had the capacity to be able to survive, even in that kind of

environment. i mean, once the declaration is issued we are the alien body in the global political scene and we were a threat by our very nature being who we were placed. so i. j.v. hogan, by the way, i'm a product of the new haven public schools, my dad will be laid to rest in grocery cemetery as a career new haven lawyer shortly. but textualism the constitution, using a free person, what in the declaration of independence set that up as an education standard, whether it be the people who have achieved moral authority. and that would help the open wounds that danielle was still speaking to. if the if a free person is an education standard, someone who had to achieve moral authority could go to mass every and community still be recognized as righteous, maybe we're in the spirit of the constitution created equal is a basis a free person as the language for an

education said so you're created equal but you have to achieve. sure the there are many elements crucial to a free society that the constitu lution doesn't directly address families constitution doesn't directly address the question of families that it would be a wrong inference to say an inference that actually many critics do. therefore, the constitution of the spirit of declaration is somehow anti-family and and anti community. they're part of our constitutional world, part of the world in which the declaration was drafted and signed part of the world in which the constitution was drafted and ratified was a was a world which assigned or supposed a very large role for for family, community religious

faith in forming individuals. back in those days 250 years ago. it's not unusual. learn to read by reading the so it was part of brian close this passages from burke's speech conciliation part that that fierce love of liberty that that characterized americans to educate their educate young people for to both enjoy the benefits of liberty and to maintain the institution of liberty that we're that's where it comes from the non-governmental institutions that the government institutions need to protect. i don't think we have for a follow up another so please think please join me in thanking brian and peter.

thank you.