>> turns all right. >> not bad, for a rookie you did a great job. >> the hat man, call the hat man. >> all right. >> this is one of the toughest tracks, called the monster mile for a reason and it is a track you have to drive, you did all right for your first time out. >> we appreciate it. >> i don't know if you are my

figure he said who distrusted absolutes and might be an antidote to the pervasive spirits of the vision in today's america. more recently meacham has proclaimed barack obama the most significant burkean in american politics today. meanwhile, david bricks of the "new york times" has reported that when he had a meeting last spring with president obama's senior adviser david axelrod, mr. axelrod was conspicuously carrying a copy of edmund burke's reflections on the revolution in france. sam tanenhaus has taken the burke revival even further. in the death of conservatism he distinguishes between what he

calls burkean realist, the good guys in his formulation, committed he says to flexible adjustments to changing conditions and those he excoriates as revanchists. ideologue seeking a destructive counterrevolution. according to him, the american conservative movement is dominated by extremists prevention this-- three vanishes two the prayed for a politics of stabilizing intemperance. tanenhaus's book has been criticized by conservative reviewers as a tendentious misreading of american conservatism. what tanenhaus nonstate charge is a passive, defeatist, accommodationist conservatism that politely as just in the name of burke to a political and social order created and controlled by the american left.

and the arrangement as one conservative has put it, in which conservatives served as chauffeurs to liberals, tapping the brakes occasionally as the nation speeds toward socialism. this is not the first time in recent american history that liberals have tried to appropriate edmund burke, a conservative patron st. for their purposes and interpret him as little more than an artful compromiser, a liberal republican as it were an 18th-century garb. i think i know what russell kirk would have thought of such an interpretation. be that as it may, most activists and intellectuals on the right in 2009 seem less convinced of their movements supposed exhaustion and infidelity to burke then of its need for a speedy escape from the political wilderness. but how, on what terms, and

under whose banner? beenies of the intramural squabbling of the past year life philosophical and strategic fault lines of the importance. how should american conservatives regain their footing in the neal political terrain? should they go back to basics and proclaim their principles with the renewed fervor after their frustrations and modeled compromises of the past the ears? or should they calmed down and concentrate on devising fresh public policy initiatives designed to attract a punitively centrist and pragmatic electorate? should they militantly reaffirm their anti-statist convictions or reluctantly concede that, like it or not, the government is here to stay? how much, it that all, should

the conservative message and movement be reconfigured? in back of these questions lice the specter of a dilemma that whittaker chambers describe to william f. buckley jr. and another time of conservative english more than 50 years ago. those who remain in the world chambers of served, it they will not surrender on its terms, must maneuver within its terms. that is what conservatives must decide, how much to give in order to survive at all. how much to give in order not to give up the basic principles. of this he predicted would lead to a dance along a precipice. in 2009, a new era of conservative maneuvering began. it did not commence auspiciously

last year, the "new york times" technology columnist, david pogue, listed the five stages of grieving when you lose your computer files. the niall, anger, bargaining, depression, and moving to homage country. [laughter] it sounded like a fair description of the mood gripping many american conservatives in the wake of the 2008 election. well, have conservatives really lost their computer files? certainly evidence abounds of a political and intellectual movement in the ferment. one sign of this is the growing tendency on the right to classify conservatives into ever smaller groupings.

neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, big government conservatives, leave us alone conservatives, compassionate conservatives, crunchy conservative, populist conservatives, the latest conservatives, tea party conservatives, at dinner party conservatives. [laughter] and the list goes on. another sign is the volume in vehemence of the intramural polemicizing in which some of these elements have engaged in recent years and months. a once were relatively disciplined band of brothers and sisters, or so it used to appear in the age of reagan, has seemingly thibault into a jumble of inharmonious factions. several advantageous factors have strengthened the impression that american conservatism has come to a cul-de-sac.

the deaths of milton friedman in 2006, of william f. buckley jr. in 2008 and of irving kristol in 2009 precipitated an outpouring of introspection and an intensified awareness that nearly all of modern american conservatism is founding fathers have now gone to the grave. coupled with this generational changing of the guard, has been a phenomenal upsurge of popular interest in the life and achievements of ronald reagan. critics scoff at this as mere nostalgia. the right-wing equivalent of the the breault cults of john f. kennedy. it is much more than that of course, but memories of the gipper to remind the conservatives of better days and reflect the feeling of disorientation that many on the right now feel.

a more subtle ingredient in this mix has been the efflorescence in the past decade of historical scholarship about american conservatism since world war ii. much of it written by a young liberal historians. this is not necessarily a sign of declension but it's certainly testifies to the growing passage of time. the conservative movement has now been around long enough to be the object of academic inquiry. to put it another way, modern american conservatism, a marginalized orphan in academia when i began research on that a generation ago, has become a middle-aged, which of course raises the uncomfortable question, our old age and re-marginalization just around the corner? occurrent explanations of the

conservative predicaments tend to fall into two distinct categories. the first stresses the movement's political failures and frustrations during their recent presidency of george w. bush. with the exception of its tax-cutting policies and judicial nominations, bush's administration at least on the home front, now seems to many conservative stalwarts who have been in considerable a degree in liberal republican administration more akin to rockefeller, nixon and reagan. the second cluster of explanations for conservatism's focus is not so much on the external political but on internal factors, that is the structure and dynamics of the conservative movement itself. perhaps the most important thing to understand about modern american conservatism is that it

is not and has never been unit focal. it is a coalition which many points of origin and the first tendencies, not always easy to reconcile with one another. now, so long as the cold war continued this coalition held together reasonably well. anticommunism, a conviction shared by nearly everyone, supplied much of the essential unifying simmons. but with the end of the cold war and the early 1990's and the departure from office of the ecumenical reagan, long suppressed centrifugal tendencies resurfaced on the american right, as we well know. without a common foe on him to concentrate their minds, it became easier for former allies to succumb to the bane of all coalitions, the sectarian

temptation, the tendency to go it alone. cropping up in both of these sets of the explanation from time to time has been a kind of historical determinism. the notion that political and intellectual movements like individuals and nations have immutable like cycles. just as it was once believed that civilizations in pass from barbarism to arcadian bliss to urban prosperity and the bench will rot and the klein, so it sometimes seems must take conservative movement itself pass and in the phrase, from dawn to decadence. this have articulated a theory of social entropy underlies much of the recent giddiness on the left about conservatives' prospects and perhaps some of the angst that one finds among

some commentators on the right. so then, is the house of conservatism about to collapse? firm are the foundations of modern american conservatism? i suggest to you that they are sturdier than many observers think. first, when examining the epiphenomenon of contemporary politics, especially in our era of ever more frenzied and frothy news cycles it is helpful to remember the ancient atish, this too shall pass away. the divisive bush presidency is over and many of the externals political circumstances that so dismayed conservatives in recent years have begun to dissipate. as george orwell reminded us years ago, one of the temptations to which

intellectuals are susceptible is to assume that whatever is happening right now will continue to happen. that tomorrow will inevitably look just like today. in some ways it will, but in some ways it won't. certainly, the future is preconditions by the past. but it is not predetermined by the past. we are creatures of our mental constructs and our life experiences, yes, but we are not robots. the longer i steady history, the more i-- impressed by and by the importance of contingency, the unforeseen and the unforeseeable in the shaping of human events. american conservatives i believe instinctively look upon our history in this way. and not simply as a burden and a

constraint, but as possibility. they should therefore take heart and indeed are already doing so, from the knowledge that this moment two-- too shelp pass away. secondly, in their fixation on the sound and fury of the stormy presents, it is easy for conservatives to overlooked and undervalued one of their most impressive achievements during the past 40 years, the creation of a veritable conservative counterculture, a burgeoning infrastructure of alternative media, foundations like heritage, research centers, thinktanks, publishing houses, law firms, homeschooling networks and more. from the beltway to the blogosphere, these clusters of purposeful energy continue to multiplied and flourish.

they comprise a significant part of what has been called the influence industry in washington. from the perspective of a historian, this flooring of applied conservatism if you will, this is leopard deinstitutionalization of conservative impulses and ideas is a remarkable intellectual and political development. think of it. when amanat conservative thinkers like william f. buckley jr., richard weaver and russell kirk were riding in the 1950's and early 1960's, the number of publicly active professing conservative intellectuals in the united states was minuscule. today, how can we even begin to count? since 1980, prosperity has come to american conservatism and with that a multitude of niche

markets and specialization on 8,000 friends. the fruit of a generation of successful conservative institution building has reached a critical mass that seems unlikely to crumble anytime soon. this augurs well for the continued influence of conservatism in our national conversation. a third source of their ability for conservatives is this. on the home front, the cohesion that was once supplied by cold war anticommunism has increasingly come from another war, the so-called culture wars. pitting an alliance of conservative roman catholics, evangelical protestants and orthodox jewish believers against a's judeo-christian, even anti-christian secular elites who they perceive to be

aggressively hostile to their deepest convictions. every day, fresh tremors break out along this fault line over abortion, euthanasia, death panels, the definition of a marriage and the composition of the federal courts. last year the clash appeared in senator obama's claim that better rural americans cling to god and the guns. today, as i speak, it is front and center in the fight over federal funding of abortions in the senate health care bill. it is a struggle literally over the meaning of right and wrong, a battle for conservatives against what pope benedict has called the tyranny of relativism. early in 2008, it briefly became fashionable in the media to suggest that the culture wars

were over as a salient feature of american life. but the predictable contingencies of history. it in the meteoric e sense of sarah palin to national prominence and in the storm of publicity that has enveloped her ever since, the smouldering culture wars in some ways also a class war, have reignited. for the foreseeable future, the perception of an irrepressible conflict between conservative people of faith and the secular left is likely to energize large sectors of the american right. fourthly, and perhaps most importantly of all, the conservative coalition seems likely to survive for a while because most of the externals stimuli that goaded it into existence have not disappeared. on the contrary, they have

recently grown stronger and more threatening. the berlin wall may be gone and with that the unifying force of anticommunism, but fresh authoritarian challenges of bound overseas on many fronts while lecompte drive to tax, regulate in even socialized parts of the private sector gathers force. large swatches of american cultural life, notably the universities, the major media and the entertainment industry continued to move in directions and pathetical to conservative beliefs. for defenders of judeo-christian ethics, and that means most conservatives, there is still a potent enemy on the left. this awareness of a revived external challenge from the left is integral to the prospects for american conservatism in the years just ahead.

the most hopeful portend for conservatives paradoxically may be the very audacity and even hubris of their ideological foes. as the obama administration and its congressional supporters have lurched left word, talk of a conservative crackup has all but disappeared, at least on the right. more quickly and effectively than many observers thought possible, president obama's initiatives have galvanized his intellectual and political opponents into fervent resistance. a spirit of insurgency has swiftly returned to conservative ranks. the language of liberty, don't tread on me, has acquired new residents on the right and beyond. justice sarah palin 2008 reinvigorated millions of despondent grassroots conservatives, the reality of

liberalism in power in 2009 has been stirred them even more. bessette backs of 2008 and the tea party protests of 2009 have taught their rights of-- valuable lesson. and the words of the computer scientist, allen kay, the best way to predict the future is to invent it. as 2009 gives way to 2010, a research and conservatives seem determined to do just that. nevertheless, spirit alone cannot do it all. ideas too have consequences as richard weaver long ago reminded us and it is in this round the conservatives face long-term challenges that should curb any tendency to relax. consider for example the phenomenon known as

globalization. when we use the word we tend to think first of the globalization of markets, a free trade in goods and services across national borders, but far more significant i think in the long term is the accelerating globalization of human migratio patterns, with cultural and political consequences that we have scarcely begun to fathom. more people are on the move in the world now than at any time in the history of the human race, and more and more of them are making america their destination. the number of international students for instance attending american colleges and universities is now approximately 600,000 per year. a figure more than double what it was in 1980. meanwhile, increasing numbers of americans are electing to live outside the united states.

at least 46 million americans are now permanent residence abroad. among american college students, particularly those matriculating at the elite institutions it is not quite common to spend part of one's jr gear overseas, something very few could afford to do just a generation ago. this unprecedented intermingling of peoples and cultures abetted by expanding air travel and the incredible villosity of mass communication has already begun to have ideological ramifications. in the united states it has been accompanied by the emergence of multiculturalism as the driving dogma of our educational system. it has been accustomed accompanied by the delivered dilution of traditional civic education and the resultant explosion of cultural illiteracy

about america's heritage. it has been accompanied in the field of historiography by narrative switch accentuate the failures and the images of the american experience. it has been accompanied by the rise of the liberal cosmopolitan elite imbued with a post national, even at times anti-national sensibility and motivated by what the historian john sante calls transnational progressivism. and ideology profoundly and pathetical to conservative beliefs. david of yell university put it this way just before thanksgiving at a blog at national review online. each year he wrote there is less american isn't and more globalism among our citizens, less knowledge and more sophistication. among children less interest in thanksgiving and a small band of fears questions hanging onto a new world by their fingertips

and more interest in black friday, the perfect post christian feast. what does all this portend for the party of the right? for generations of american conservatives have been united in their defense of our nation, of our inherited constitutional order, against enemies both foreign and domestic, something relatively easy to do during the cold war but increasingly difficult today. traditionally american conservatives have been eurocentric and their political and cultural discourse, but how can conservatives convincingly articulate this respect to non-european immigrants into millions of superficially educated young americans and a time when much of europe itself no longer seems eurocentric? these are not idle questions.

in 2008, the political scientist, james ceasar, who observed that for 30 years the conservative movement in the united states has been defended the ideas in his words that almost all other nations in the west are abandoning, the concept of the nation itself, the importance of biblical religion and the truth of natural rights philosophy. traditionally americans have adhered to a form of national self understanding that scholars term american exceptionalism. ronald reagan did and he carried the country with him. now, increasingly, the reaganites vision of american goodness and uniqueness that most conservatives embrace seems both more exceptional and more vulnerable than ever. with what arguments, symbols, rituals, and vocabulary can

conservatives make their case for the american way of life that they cherished to those for whom the traditional arguments, symbols, rituals and vocabulary are either unfamiliar or seem hopelessly passe? again, this is not a trivial concern. it lay at the heart of our recent presidential election campaign. behind the disputes last year over public policy and personal fitness for the presidency, behind the vehemence of the culture wars surrounding governor palin worked the question, what kind of a policy does america desire to become? as the conservative british commentator dirard fakir has noted, the election of 2008 turned into a struggle between the followers of american exceptionalism and his supporters of global universalism.

as the election outcome made plain, the american conservative said not get adequately articulated their convictions in terms that can appeal to people outside their own camp. and particularly to those who james burnham called the verbalizers of our society. on this point consider a demographic datum from the last election. make a list, as ronald brownstein and david wasserman have done, of all the counties in the united states with that least 20,000 people. then look at the 100 best educated of these counties, those having the highest percentage of college graduates defined as people over the age of 25 with a bachelor's degree or higher. most of these counties, america's so-called diploma built, used to be republican. that is no longer the case.

in 1988, the democratic presidential candidates carried only 36 of these 100 counties. last year, the democratic candidates carried 78 of them. another datum cents a similar warning symbol to conservatives. according to exit polling statistics cited by michael barone, 50% of americans aged 30 and over goaded into thousand eight for mr. obama. in other words americans aged 30 and up were divided almost evenly in that election. but among voters aged 29 in younger, obama won by a margin of 66 to 32%. it was the widest generation gap in the history of american exit polling and probably in the history of the united states.

all this prompts me to ask, is it time that conservatives created a kind of conservative version of national public radio, or the steak coordinated network of conservative of npr's fresh air, on point and talk of the nation programs devoted not just to daily political combat in commentary by to conservatively oriented cultural explorations of the brought us character. is in that time to revive the great 1970's television program, the advocates, which featured periodic prime-time nationally televised 90-minute live debates on public television between liberal and conservative attorneys and supporting teams of expert witnesses. as some of you may recall william a. rusher of national review was the conservative star in that series. isn't it time to revive firing

line? surely the talent, the resources and the audience are there to make such acts of cultural reclamation worth attempting. this leads me to a final observation. i am a historian of american conservatism and i can happily report that sophisticated discourse is thriving on the american right. but it also appears to me that conservative spend much of their time in current problems cocooning with one another and that in this age of the internet too much conservative advocacy has been reduced to sound bite certitudes and sterile cliches. what do conservatives want? limited government the answer, free enterprise, strict

construction of the constitution, fiscal responsibility, patriotism, traditional values and respect for the sanctity of human life. no doubt, but i wonder how much are these traditional formulations and abstractions inspiring their rising generation, present company excepted. how much are they resonating with america's new emigrants and dominant professional classes, particularly those in the more secularized the urbanized and globalized regions of the country. it is not a new problem. in fact it is a perennial problem. the essence of which whittaker chambers captured long ago. each h.e. wrote finds its own language for an eternal meaning. what do conservatives want?

to put it in elementary terms, we want to be free. we want to live virtuous and productive lives and we want to be secured from threats beyond and within our borders. we want to live in a society which sustains and encourages these aspirations. freedom, of virtue, safety, goals reflected in the libertarian traditionalist and national-security dimensions of the conservative movement and coalition. but to achieve these perennial goals, we must communicate in language that connects not only with ourselves, but with the great majority of the american people in all stations of life. can it be done? i think it can. if there is one thing that

virtually all conservatives holding common, it is the conviction that there is indeed in the eternal meaning, a fount of wisdom to be drawn upon through thick and then and believing this, we can smile and persevere. the recent past has been unsettling to american conservatives, but the immediate future is waiting to be invented. and in the words of william f. buckley jr., nearly 50 years ago, the wells of re-generation are infinitely deep. thank you. [applause] >> before going to questions, i just want to say, and i think you all would agree with me and i think our audience may also agree with us in the c-span

audience, that maybe the most brilliant lecture that has been given at the heritage foundation in five years, ten years, 20 years, maybe cents russell kirk is no longer with us. i just think it was absolutely magnificent. [applause] so, having gotten that off my chest, questions from the audience please? wait for the microphone to come to you. please identify yourself, if you will, and the gentleman here in the front row. >> hello, i am from as so well politics here in washington d.c. and i wanted to ask you first of all, i want to say really enjoyed the lecture and i wanted to ask you if, to what degree and do you believe that ron paul phenomenon has the potential to reenergize sing american

conservatism? >> it represents one branch of a broader coalition, to give you a very quick capsule word. he obviously is in the libertarian wing of the movement that raises traditionalist neoconservatism's, and others, so it is, i think of the conservative movement and i think if it is going to be successful when coalition all terms and he represents one wing of that and he represents what i call in mine speech the language of liberty, which is really taking hold again at the grassroots and this is a language that has indigenous origins and our historical experience, so that in itself bodes well for conservatives because they tend to relate to two fellow americans in language that means something to us historically. it is not all abstract or imported, so i think what

representative paul articulates and represents them is that kind of libertarian view point, where he tends to be somewhat limited in its impact but it comes about when he begins to approach foreign policy where there are differences between his approach to the middle east and foreign involvement generally and that of many other conservatives, so that remains an issue upon which conservatives and people on the left as well are divided. representative paul of course is-- so i don't know whether he has tendencies in seeking the presidency again as he did in 2008, but he conveys a certain message which appeals to a certain part of the spectrum and which in some ways resonates with much broader parts of the spectrum but i think particularly on the foreign-policy side of his message, that is more constrained. that is more limited and not all conservatives would adhere to that.

also his pierre anti-stateism to view may be of little too pure for what more middle-of-the-road conservatives would regard as achievable or even possibly desirable in the real world in which we live. but, he does obviously speak to some and that message has a certain wider rein in the wake of the t.a.r.p. plan and the bailouts in the stimulus package is in the health care issues, in the wake of these gigantic intrusion of government into the private sector that we have witnessed in the last year-and-a-half so the message resonates further but i doubt that he himself is going to be the carrier of that message to greater heights. i see a question over there but the mic first. >> hi, i am john murdoch a local attorney and freelance writer. mr. nasheed described black friday as the perfect post christian fees tenet prins me to ask what are your thoughts on the marriage between the

religious culture warriors and big business interests in conservatism? >> that was a quotation from david glurtner but i found it in seigel actually. you are pointing out i suppose is certain fall line in the conservative movement between social conservatives and those who were more interested in economic issues and in promoting economic growth and that presumably would involve promoting spending for consumer expenditures and so forth. that is a fault line, which periodically leads to a certain amount of friction, but generally, what i have found it my studies that if you talk to a traditionalist conservative, a church going conservative lead essay or someone very concerned with the right to like issues or the marriage issue and so forth, those people also are disposed to favor a free society. they may not favor the

extravagant consumerist manifestations such as let us say black friday would someone says is like these for now. it is a phenomena that we are going to annually have like the super bowl i guess, so the point i'm starting to make here is that we all have certain goals within our hearts and i think we all in some way or another one to be freed, virtuous and safe and prosperous. people can balance those motivations differently and the motivations can lead to some conflict and some cases, but it is not an either/or situation of saying you up just up the economic prosperity over here in the religious traditionalist crowd in that corner and they have nothing to say to each other and they have nothing to share in common. i think that they do and when you get out beyond the abstractions and look at the way real people are living in their lives, you will find that there is considerable common ground

among them. much of it provided by the challenge from outside. that is, the challenge from the left and that is where the coalition intends to come together, even if they have internal differences as all coalitions do, where they tend to come together will be against the perceived externals challenge which right now seems to be gaining considerable force, so i think you would find than that some of the, may be the inside the beltway talk about religious traditionalists being on the outskirts, you confine sound bite examples of that kind of thing but i am not sure when you get out to the grassroots that matters quite as much as a mite otherwise appear. >> hello dr. nash.

i am a george washington university. i was interested in what he said and i worked-- wonder what role the tendency would play? >> yes, it is a rather vigorous expression right now. i don't know it is particularly dominant but it is certainly a form of cultural critique, and let stoker take that appeals to many younger conservatives, especially those who have some religious and theistic inclination. it can be kind of colorful. rod dreier who wrote the book on the phenomenon is a writer a talent, and his written quite vividly about some of these concerns and i have noticed that among conservatives and so forth as some of these concerns expressed in the movement are mainstream. what is probably not mainstream

is the, the call that he has sort of made to conservatives to withdraw from the larger culture and set up their own alternative culture. that strikes me as unrealistic and overly idealistic, but certain issues that they care about in terms of lifestyle are ones that resonates some and it is not-- i don't know whether it is a political movement in this sense that it addresses all of the big issues that we think of this big political issues, foreign policy issues for example or broad economic policy issues, but when it gets to the question of how want to live in my community, then certain local issues, communitarian issues, will resonate for those folks and they would probably have some influence and some basis so it is sort of a subset of the

traditionalist wing of the conservative movement, and i see it as having some, some power as a cultural force, as the vehicle of cultural criticism. i am not certain it has a broader political goal or maybe even desire to have such a political goal. so that i think would be perhaps inadequate answer for the moment. there is a young lady-- i know you. >> joe jensen. i have a question in regard to the conservatism resonating with younger americans. i like your prescriptions, but i do think that might be, a form of communication vertical approach and i wanted to know what your thoughts would be on horizontal peer-to-peer type approach in terms of millennials. i get my information from the internet or tv, talk to my friends. >> as someone who is not on

facebook i may not be the most-- [laughter] the most competent to answer your question but i am certainly struck by the multiplicity of the the news of communication among people in the under 29 demographic, and there are conservatives out there and you are one of them i know, and there are sure web sites, i know there are web sites, i checked the mao myself. there are all sorts of opportunities for communication that way. vistas however the to may be more important point. i may not at my age be familiar with that but i am interested in who the entertainers are for your generation, the jon stewart or whatever, saturday night live and so one. i have a sense that conservatives are still rather weak in that category. we are good in the policy wonks field. conservatism has established a strong presence in washington

and elsewhere in terms of public policy analysis by a definite sense is in terms of creating symbols for vocabulary, rituals, creating culture in a certain anthropological sense, the conservatives are still weak and that could include among the demographic under 30. now, obviously real-world issues emerge for all of us whether it is wars, depression, housing costs etc. so that demographic is not in a bubble but because of the saturation of the media tends to be rather more insulated from external influence than some previous generations it seems to me so i guess my advice to people like you inside that demographic would be to try to create what you would recognize as the medium that can convey through humor, satire, music and other forms thomas samoa of communication are conservative ideas to people who will listen,

rather than the traditional vertical media, as you say. i think some of it is happening. i think some of it happens organically in a pyett the incent but i would like to see more of it. and maybe afterward you can tell me where i can find it, but i think that there's a weakness there that conservatives truly need to think about. so i would just make one further observation that would relate to that. much of what i said today i think i could say in essence this way that in the short term there are strings to conservatism. conservatism is not dead. the foundations are not totally dead, that is silly but in the longer term there are some challenges and that is definitely one of them. >> yes sir, my name is steven roberts and i'm a former intern here at the heritage foundation and in the u.s. army reserves. sir, after reading your original

work, i notice that there was a spiritual-- deck halliwell and strauss noticed that temporal sphere in which really we don't see in and their religious climate but really a different religious climate that is in our society and i want to know what your perspective this in terms of our engagement with this growing gnostic religious climate how we might undermine its theological and philosophical presuppositions, so i appreciate your insights there. >> it seems to me that conservatism is more than a concern with economics and i don't say that in any way to diminish or disparage the importance of the economic concerns. it is more also then national security concerns and we all know those are vital in deep. it really involves transmitting a cultural patrimony from one