articles, lectures and room nations titled reappraising the right, the past and future of american conservativism. like the earlier work, reappraising the right is essential work for the conservative. on the very last page, dr. nash urges conservatives to break out of their comfortable cocoons, stop spending so much time talking to each other and communicate, and communicate. their ideas and their visions of a free, virtuous and safe society in language that connect cans not only with our own coterie, but with the great majority of the american people. ..

>> i thank you, john, and her colleagues at the heritage for providing a form for me today to discuss the subject matter of my due book, "reappraising the right." it is always a privilege and a

pleasure to be on the platform at the heritage foundation. now coming as i do on the occasion of a publication of a new book, i feel a certain dilemma, which i suppose every author would feel under the circumstances. namely, if i say too little about the book, you may not be motivated to read it. but if i say too much, you may feel that you've read it already. so rather than simply spend the next half hour explaining what the various topics in the book are, and various specters and frameworks of thought and so forth, i thought it would be more important and appropriate for me as a historian to offer some reflections on where i see the conservative movement today in its intellectual and political manifestation. and perhaps offer a few thoughts as to its possible potential for the future. so rather than simply replicate

the book or over here in the next few minutes, i will rather stand back a bit from it but draw up on it in order to examine the current status of american conservatism. in the american election year of 2008, as barack obama glided unexpectedly toward the white house, a new political merten took hold among the chattering classes. the conservative era, the age of reagan was said to be in the. according to liberal writers like ejb on, the once mighty conservative intellectual and political force that had dominated nations debate since the late 1970s had fallen into more of bundy and disarray. a few conservative pundits seemed half inclined to agree. a frequent contributor to national review online sensed what he called intellectual

fatigue among his ideological allies. and added, the conservative idea factory is not producing as it once did. another rising conservative commentator, goldberg, comments a column in u.s.a. today in mid- 2008 by quoting the writers you must plan to johnson who said cheer up, for the worst is yet to come. although goldberg went on to insist that the conservative movement had a lot of life left in it, he captured the mood of trepidation, gripping many around him as the election approached. some on the right were more acerbic, patrick buchanan expressed his dismay at the conservative establishment by invoking an aphorism attribute it to eric hoffer. every great cause begins as a

movement, becomes a business, and then a racket. such sentiments did not dissipate with the defeat of the republican party, that in perfect local of modern conservatism, at the polls later in the year. some weeks before the election, sam tanenhaus, the editor of "the new york times" book review, a sorted imprint that the conservative movement had entered its last and genuinely decadent phase. some weeks after the election his prognosis became wormwood stupid writing in the republic, he offered what was called an intellectual autopsy of the movement. and just three months ago, he turned to this essay into a little book entitled the death of conservatism. once again, voices on the right could be found to at least partly agree with him. within days of last years

election, jeffrey hart, a longtime senior editor of national review who left the magazine in 2008 and endorse obama, declared at a liberal website, movement conservatism, rip. as if all this were not sufficiently unsettling, in recent months, we have witnessed a sudden revival of edmund burke, interest in edmund burke, in a most unexpected quarter, the american left. last spring, jon meacham, the legal editor at newsweek, hailed burke as a role model for our times, a complex pragmatic figure, he said, who distrusted absolutes and who might be an antidote to the pervasive spirit of division in today's america. more recently, meacham has been claimed barack obama the most

significant burkey and in american politics today. meanwhile, david brooks of "the new york times" has reported that when he had a meeting last spring with president obama's senior adviser, david off the iraq, mr. axelrod was conspicuously carrying a copy of edmund burke's reflections on the revolution in france. sam tanenhaus has taken it further. in the death of conservatism, he distinguishes between what he calls burkey and realists, the good guys in his formulation, committed he says to flexible adjustments, to changing conditions are and knows he excoriates as revanchists. ideologues seeking a destructive counterrevolution. according to him, the american conservative movement is dominated by extremist revanchists who have betrayed

burkeians moderation for a politics of the stabilizing into grants. and houses book has been criticized by conservative reviewers as a contentious miss reading of american conservatism. what cannon house wants, they charge, is a passive, defeatist accommodationist conservatism that politely adjusts in the name of burke to a political and social order created and controlled by the american left. and arrangement, as one conservatives put it, in which conservatives serve 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 and when berg, a conservative patron saint, for their purposes and interpret him as little more than an artful

compromiser. a liberal republican, as a work in 18th century garb. i think i know what russell kirk would have thought of such a trepidation. 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, that of its need for a speedy escape from the political wilderness. but how? on what terms? and under whose banner? beneath all the intramural squabbling of the past year, like philosophical and strategic faultlines of importance. how should american conservatives regained their footing in the new political terrain? should they go back to basics and proclaim their principles with renewed fervor?

after their frustrations and modeled compromises of the past eight years. or should they calm down and concentrate on devising fresh public policy initiatives, designed to attract a pragmatic electorate? should they militantly reaffirm their anti-status convictions? or reluctantly concede that, like it or not, big government is here to stay. how much, if at all, should the conservative message and movement he reconfigured? impact of these questions lies the specter of a dilemma that whittaker chambers described to william f. buckley, jr. in another time of conservative anguish more than 50 years ago. those who remain in the world, chambers observed, if they will not surrender on its terms, must maneuver within its terms are

that is what conservatism is 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. all this, he predicted, would lead to a dance along oppressiveness. 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. denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and moving to amish 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 of a political and intellectual movement in ferment. one sign of this is the growing tendency on the right to classify conservatives into ever smaller groupings. neoconservatives, paley of conservatives, big government conservatives, leave us alone conservatives, compassionate conservatives, crunchy conservatives, populist conservatives, a lead as conservatives, tea party conservatives, dinner party conservatives. [laughter] >> and the list goes on. another sign is the volume and

vehemence of the intramural publicizing in which some of these elements have engaged in recent years and months. a once relatively disciplined band of brothers and sisters, are so used to appear in the age of reagan, has seemingly evolved into a jumble of inharmonious actions. 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 a urban crystal 2009 precipitated an outpouring of interest action and an intensified awareness that nearly all of modern american conservatism 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 liberal cold, john f. kennedy. it is much more than that, of course, but memories of the gipper to remind conservatives of better days and reflective 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 john liberal historians. this is not necessarily a sign of declension but it is certainly testifies to the growing passage of time. the conservative movement has now been around long enough to

be the object of academic equally. to put it another way, modern american conservatism, a marginalized orphan in academia when i began research on it 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? current explanations of the conservative predicament tend to fall into two distinct categories. the first stresses the movement political failures and frustrations during the recent presidency of george w. bush. with the exception of its tax cutting policies and judicial nominations, bush's administration at least on the homefront now seems to many conservative stalwarts to be a

suitable degree a liberal republican administration, more akin to rockefeller then to reagan. the second cluster of explanation for conservatism as it focuses not so much on external political circumstances, but not 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 of local. it is a coalition with many points of origin and diverse tendencies, not always easy to reconcile with one another. now so long as the cold war continued, this coalition held together reasonably well. anti-communism, a conviction shared by nearly everyone, supplied much of the essential

unifying semantics. but with the end of the cold war in the early 1990s, and the departure from office of the ecumenical reagan, long suppressed centrifugal tendencies we surfaced on the american right as we well know. without a common foe on whom to concentrate their minds, it became easier for former allies to succumb to the bane of all coalitions, the sect carried temptation, the tendency to go it alone. cropping up in both of these sets of explanation from time to time has been a kind of historical determinism. the notion that political intellectual movements, like individuals and nations, have lifecycles. just as it was once believed that civilizations ineluctably

pass from barbarism to arcadian bliss, the urban prosperity, and eventual rot in decline, so it sometimes seems most the conservative movement itself past. from dawn to decadence. this half articulated 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? how firm are the foundations of modern american conservatism? i would suggest to you that they are sturdier than many observers think. first, when examining the at the phenomenon of contemporary

politics, especially in our era of ever more frenzied and frothy news cycles, it is helpful to remember the ancient adage, this too shall pass away. the divisive bush presidency is over. and many of the extra 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 preconditioned 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 study history, the more i -- impressed i am 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. not simply as a burden and constrained constraint, but as possibility. they should therefore take heart, and indeed are already doing so, from the knowledge that this moment, too, shall pass away. secondly, in their fixation on the sound and fury of the stormy present, it is easy for conservatives to overload and

undervalue one of their most impressive achievements during the past 40 years. the creation of a variable conservative counterculture, a burgeoning infrastructure of alternative media, foundations like heritage, research centers, think tanks, publishing houses, law firms, homeschooling networks, and more. from the beltway to the blogosphere, these clusters of purposeful energy continue to multiply and flourish. they comprise a significant part of what has been called the influence industry in washington. from the perspective of a historian, this flowering of applied conservatism, if you will, this is elaborate institutionalization of conservative impulses and ideas is a remarkable intellectual and political development. think of it.

win in the conservative thinkers like william f. buckley, jr., richard weaver, and russell kirk, were riding in the 1950s and early 1960s, the number of publicly active professing conservative intellectuals in the united states was miniscule. today, how can we even begin to count? since 1980, prosperity has come to american conservatism, and with it a multitude of niche markets and specialization on a thousand fronts. the fruit of a generation of success conservative institution building has reached the 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 durability for conservatives is this. on the homefront, a cohesion that was once applied by cold war anti-communism has increasingly come from another, or so-called culture war, getting an alliance of conservative roman catholics of angelico province and orthodox jewish believers against a post-judeo-christian even anti-christian secular elite, whom they perceived to be aggressively hostile to their deepest convictions. every day, fresh tremors break out along the fault line. over abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, the definition of marriage, and the composition of the federal courts. last year, the clash appeared in the senator obama's claim that bitter, rural americans cling to god and 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 was 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 on american life. but, oh, the unpredictable contingencies of history. in the meteoric ascent of sarah palin to national prominence, and in the storm of publicity that has enveloped her ever since, the smoldering 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 there fourthly, and perhaps most importantly of all, the conservative coalition seems likely to survive for a while because most of the external stimuli that goaded into existence have not disappeared. on the contrary, they have recently grown stronger and more threatening. the berlin wall may be gone, and with it the unifying force of anti-communism. but fresh authoritarian challenges abound overseas and many fronts, while at home the drive to tax, regulate and even socialized parts of the private sector gathers force. large swatches of american culture life, notably the

universities, major media and the entertainment industry, continued to move in directions. 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 on the left is integral to the prospects for american conservatism in the years just ahead. the most hopeful for conservatives paradoxically may be the very audacity and even hubris of their ideological posted as the obama administration had urged, talk of a conservative crack up has all but disappeared him at least on the right. more quickly, and effectively, that many observers thought possible, president obama's

initiatives have galvanized his intellectual and political opponents into fervent resistance. a spirit of insurgency has quickly returned conservative ranks. the language of liberty, don't tread on me, has acquired new resonance on the right and beyond. just as sarah palin scanty in 22008 reinvigorated millions of the spotted grassroots conservatives, the reality of liberalism in power in 2009 has stirred them even more. the setbacks of 2008 and the tea party protest of 2009 have taught the right of valuable lesson. in the worst of the computer scientist alan kay, the best way to predict the future is to invent it. as 2009 is way to 2010,

researching 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 realm that 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. of free trade, goods and services across national borders. but far more significant, i think, in the long-term is the accelerating globalization of human migration patterns, with total and political consequences that we have scarcely begun to fathom. more people are on the move in

the world now than at anytime in the history of the human race. and more and more of them are making america their destination. a number of international students, for instance, attending american colleges and universities is now approximately 600,000 per year. a figure more than doubled and what was in 1980. meanwhile, increasing numbers of americans are electing to live outside the united states. at least four to 6 million americans are now permanent residence abroad. among american college students, particularly those who at lead institutions it is now quite common to spend part of one's junior year 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 philosophy of masking occasion, has already begun to have ideological ramifications. in the united states, it has been accompanied by the emergence of both multiculturalism as the driving dogma of our educational system. it has been a custom -- a copy by the deliberate dilution of traditional civic education, and the result of explosion of cultural illiteracy about america's heritage. it has been accompanied in the field of historiography by narratives which accentuate the failures of the american experience. it has been accompanied by the rise of a liberal cosmopolitan elite, imbued with a post-national even at times and i national sensibility, and motivated by what the historian calls transnational

progressivism. and etiology profoundly. . . >> against enemies both foreign and domestic, something relatively easy to do during the cold war

but increasingly difficult today. traditionally, american conservatives have been euro-centric in their political and cultural discourse, but how can conservatives convincingly articulate this perspective to non-immigrants and superficially educated young americans and at a time when much of europe itself no longer seems euro-centric? these are not idle questions. in 2008 the political scientist james caesar observed that for 30 years the conservative movement in the united states has been defending 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 right 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 reaganite 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 cherish 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 war surrounding governor palin lurked the question, what kind of equality does america desire to become? as the conservative british commentator gerard baker has noted, the election of 2008 turned into a struggle between the followers of american exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. as the election outcome made plain, american conservatives have not yet adequately articulated their convictions in terms that can appeal to people outside their own camp. and particularly to those whom james burnham called the verbalizers of our society. on this point consider a demographic datum mr. the last -- from the last election. make a list as ronald brownstein

and david wasserman have done of all the counties in the united states with at 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 countyies, america's so-called diploma built, used to be republican. that is no longer the case. in 1988 the democratic presidential candidate carried only 36 of these 100 county cans. last year the democratic candidate carried 78 of them. another datum sends a similar warning signal to conservatives. according to exit polling statistics cited by michael barone, 50% of americans aged 30

and over voted in 2008 for mr. obama. in other words, americans age 30 and up were divided almost evenly in that election. but among voters aged 29 and 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, isn't it time that conservatives created a kind of conservative version of national public radio or at least a coordinated network of conservative equivalents of npr's fresh air, on point and talk of the nation programs devoted not just to daily political combat and commentary, but to conservatively-oriented cultural explo -- explorations of the

broadest character. isn't it time to revive the great 1970s 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 or something like it? surely the talent, the resources do 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 conservativism, and i can happily report that sophisticated discourse is thriving on the american right.

but it also appears to me that conservatives spend much of their time in current parlance, lee mentioned this himself in the introduction, cokinding with one another and that in this age of the internet too much conservative advocacy has been reduced to sound byte certitudes and sterile cliches. what do conservatives want? limited government, they 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 the rising generation, present company accepted? how much are they resonating with america's new immigrants and dominant professional

classes, particularly those in the more secularized, urbanized and globalized regions of the country? it is not a new problem. in fact, it is a perennial problem. the essence of which whitaker chambers captured long ago, each age, he 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 secure from threats beyond and within our borders. we want to live in a society which sustains and encourages these aspirations. freedom, 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 hold in common, it is the conviction that there is, indeed, an eternal meaning, a fount of wisdom to be drawn upon through thick and thin. 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 regeneration 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 this in the c-span audience that maybe the most brilliant lecture that's been given at the heritage foundation in, i don't know, five years, ten years, twenty years, maybe since russell kirk was no longer with us. i just think it was absolutely magnificent. [applause] so having, 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. >> yes, hello. my name is paul stern, i'm from world politics here in washington, d.c., and i wanted to ask you, well, first of all, i wanted to say i really enjoyed the lecture, and i wanted to ask you if to what degree and do you believe that the ron paul phenomenon has the potential to really reenergy eyes american conservativism? >> it is -- it represents one branch of a broader coalition. to give you a very quick capsule word he, obviously, is in the libertarian wing of a movement that embraces traditionalists, ne-yo conservatives -- neoconservatives, religious righters and others. i think if it is going to be successful in coalitional terms, and he represents one wing of

that. and he represents what i called in my, in my speech the language of liberty which is really taking hold again at the grass root. and this is a language that has indigenous origins in our historical experience, so that in itself bodes well for conservatives because they can relate to fellow americans in language that means something to us historically. it's not all abstract or imported. so i think that what representative paul articulates and represents then is that kind of libertarian viewpoint where he tends to be somewhat limited in his impact is, comes about when he begins to approach foreign policy where there are differences between his approach to the middle east and foreign involvements 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 now a man in his 70s, so i don't know whether he has intentions of seeking the presidency again as he did in 2008. but he, 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's more limited and not all conservatives would adhere to that. also his pure anti-statist view may be a little too pure for what more middle-of-the-roadtives would regard as achievable or even desirable in the real world in which we live. but he does, obviously, speak to some, and that message has a certain wider ring in the a wake of the t.a.r.p. plan and the stimulus package and the health care issues, in the wake of

these gigantic intrusions of government into the private sector that we have witness inside the last year and a half, so the message resonates further, but i doubt he himself is going to be the carrier of that message to greater heights. i see a question over there but the microphone first. >> hi, i'm john fur dock, a local -- murdoch a local attorney and freelance writer. mr. nash, you described black friday as the perfect post-christian feast, and it promises me to ask, what are your thoughts on the marriage between the religious cultural warriors and big business interests in conservativism? >> that was a quotation from david glertner, but i found it amusing and insightful actually. you're pointing out here, i suppose, a certain fault line in the conservative movement between social conservatives and those who are more interested in economic issues and in promoting economic growth, and that would presumably involve promoting spending for consumer

expenditure and so forth. we -- that is a, that is a fault line which periodically leads to a certain amount of friction. but generally what i have found in my studies that if you talk to a traditionalist conservative, a church of going conservative, let us say, or someone very concerned with right to life issues or the marriage issues and so forth, those people, also, are dissupposed to favor a free society. they may not favor the extravagant consumerist manifestations of it such as, let us say, black friday which someone says is like a sport now. it's a phenomenon we are going to annually have like the super bowl, i guess. so people -- 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 want to be free, virtuous and safe and prosperous. now, people can balance those

motivations differently, and the motivations can lead to some conflict in some cases, but it's not an either/or situation of saying you've just got the economic prosperity crowd over here and the religious traditionalist crowd can in that corner, and they have nothing to say to each other, they have nothing shared 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'll 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 tends to come together even if they have internal differences as all coalitions do. where they tend to come together will be against the perceived expersonal challenge which right now it seem to be gaining considerable force. so i think that you would find, then, that some of the maybe

inside-the-beltway talk about, oh, religious traditionalists being on the outs with economic conservatives, so on, you can find sound byte examples of that kind of thing, but i'm not sure when you get out to the grassroots that it matters quite as much as it might otherwise appear. >> my name is -- [inaudible] , i'm with george washington university. i was interested in what you said about cultural outreach of conservatives, and i'm wondering what you think the tendency would play in that? >> yes. well, that's rather a vigorous expression right now. i don't know that it's particularly dominant, but it's certainly a form of cultural critique and lifestyle critique that appeals to many younger conservatives, especially those who have some religious or

theistic inclination. it can be kind of colorful. rod drayer who wrote the book on the phenomenon is a writer of talent and has written quite vividly about some of these concerns, and i've noticed that among, you know, conservatives in my acquaintances and so forth that some of the concerns expressed in that movement are mainstream. what is probably not mainstream is 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, and in terms of lifestyle, are ones that resonate some and it's not -- i don't know whether it is a political movement in the sense

that it addresses all of the big issues that we think of as big political issues, foreign policy issues, for example, or broad economic policy issues, but when it gets to the question of how do i want to live in my community, then certain local issues, communetarian issues will resonate for those folks, and they would probably have some influence in some places. so it is sort of a subset of the traditionalist wing of the conservative movement. and i see it as having some power as a cultural force, as a vehicle of cultural criticism. i'm not certain that it has a broader political goal or maybe even desire to have such a political goal. so that, i think, would be a perhaps inadequate answer -- an adequate answer for the moment. there's a young lady -- oh, hi, i know you.

>> jo jensen, i have a question in regards to the conservativism resonating with younger americans. i liked your prescriptions, but i do think that might be, like, a one form of communication vertical approach, and i wanted to think what your thoughts would be on a horizontal, peer-to-peer communication so that i might talk to you before i talk to -- >> well, as someone who's 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 avenues of communication among people in the you under-29 demographic. and there are conservatives out there, you're one of them, i know, and there are, i'm sure, web sites -- i know there are web sites, i check them out myself -- there are all sorts of opportunities for communication

that way. this does, however, lead to a more important point. i may just not at my age be familiar enough with it, but i'm interested in who the entertainers are for your generation, jon stewart, whoever, saturday night live and so on. i have a sense that conservatives are still rather weak this that category. we're good in the policy walk field, conservatives have established a strong presence here in washington and elsewhere in terms of public policy analysis, but my definite sense is that in terms of creating symbols, vocabulary, rituals, you know, creating cultural in a sense the conservatives are still weak, and that would include among the demographic under 30. now, obviously, real world issues emerge for all of us whether it's wars, depressions, housing costs, etc., so that demographic is not in a bubble,

but because of the saturation of media it 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 media that can convey through humor, satire, music, and other forms. some mode of communication of conservative ideas to people who will listen rather than the traditional vertical media, as you say. i think some of that is happening. i think some of it happens organically, spontaneously in a sense, but i would like to see more of it. and maybe you, afterwards, can tell me where i can find it. [laughter] but i think there is 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 strengths to conservativism. conservativism is not dead, the foundations are not totally croixed, no, that's silly, but in the longer term there are some challenges, and that is definitely one of them. >> yes, sir, my name is steven roberts, i'm a former intern here at the heritage foundation and a chaplain in the u.s. army reserves. sir, after reading your original work i noticed that there was a spiritual theme that people go to, it's like a redivinization of the the political sphere in which we see a different religious climate that's taking hold in our society. and i wanted to know what your perspective is in terms of our engagement with this growing knostic religious climate, how

we might undermine the philosophical preposition and reveal that it's hold doe. >> yes. well, it seems to me that conservativism is more than a concern with economics, and i don't see that in my way to diminish or disparage the importance of economic concerns. we all know those are vital, indeed. it really involves transmitting a cultural patrimony from one generation to the next. and incleesing -- increasingly it seems to me those who are most effective are people with a strong spiritual center. and what has impressed me as i look at the conservative movement growing in the past generation or two is the success of let us say the evangelicals in creating a kind of alternative universe, as someone has called it a parallel universe, that was the word, the

phrase, of institutions of ways of transmate mitting their value -- transmitting their values to the next generation as well as those of the current generation horizontally. so the success of conservativism, it seems to me, is going to be dependence to some substantial measure i would peck state on the ability of faith bases individuals to advocate and nottize and promote their world view, their understanding through a whole variety of means. i'm not saying that i'm not trying to be utilitarian about this, i'm not saying religion is valuable because it's going to promote something we call conservativism. i'm i -- i'm saying our civilization needs the resources of those who are building that civilization spiritually from win. the spiritual dimension, i

think, is highly important for the future of american conservativism. and what i see hopeful in that, on the horizon is what i said a moment ago, namely the creation of institutions and religious circles and many different faith communities and the phenomenon in part is a man manifestation f that. that is something of, i think, of importance for the health of the society and for those who call themselves conservatives it is something to be encouraged. and i hope that, perhaps, addresses your concern cans somewhat. there are any number of web sites and such, i don't want to get into minutiae as to who is doing what in what particular denomination or field or faith, but i'm just saying that general impulse is critical to the kind of restoration, reck la ration, renewal of o our civilization

which is, of course, what conservativism is in one way all about. >> friend of george. george, could you just track with me just a moment those slaves in massachusetts in the 1780s who invoked their natural rights, they didn't think there was anything abstract about that. lincoln thought, and i think it's been confirmed, that people from abroad often understand us better than natives understand us. they grasp those principles. we found in recent surveys a surge of support for the pro-life position on the part of the young, okay? so the issues are there. and political issues, things that we're legislating now will always involve matters right and wrong, just and unjust, so the moral questions are there, so the task of statesmanship would be to help people understand

what is more or less central, is marriage or abortion simply one issue among others. can you give a coherent account of this arrangement if you try to explain why those lives lost in abortion are anything less than human lives or why the injuries suffered by those victims of abortion are any less important than the losing of a home or a job? i just have an -- somebody we both know saying, we've got to bring the young in because most of the young are in favor of same-sex marriage, so let's discount that one. the same person would not say most of the young are in favor of nationalized medicine, so let's just go along with them. do you take this as an indication for trying to teach them what is more or less important? so i guess this comes down to the issues will always be there, the raw materials, but people could decide that, no, let's go

along with the drift, there's nothing we can do, and isn't the enduring question a philosophic question can, people who can summon the insight to explain what, in fact, people have to learn to care about as more or less central. >> well that, i think s probably primarily a task for people outside of the political sphere narrowly con seed, and many this sense -- conceived and in this sense that there aren't many people in our current politics who would have the verbal sophistication to address those sorts of issues, they're very uncomfortable with it. ..

>> reagan didn't -- yes? [inaudible question] >> i agree with you. yes, that's very important. and this is why i said that we

with need as conservatives to find a language that will convey the eternal meaning. i don't think we is simply expect the average political activist thinking in terms of vote getting and public policy to have that language without some instruction. and that instruction role can come from many forms. but it has to, i think, proceed even the political. although we can hope, of course, for the exception like a reagan, as you say. >> i'm going to take the privilege if i may of asking the last question. and that is george would you agree with me that edmund berk would regard obama progressivism the same way that he did the french revolution? >> that it was radical restructuring of society that should be opposed most firmly?

>> what would edmund berk say? >> ladies and gentlemen, please don't me -- please join me in giving a wonderful round of applause. >> every year the national presence host national light. we're here with steph levine. >> the best way to understand what's going on in russia and what's been doing on for the last several years is to look

through the lens of murder. what i argue that under putin, under vladimir putin that there is a culture, a structure in which murder and death occurs with impunity. and it goes on with the indifference of the russian people. and i call that the culture of death. >> why does that occur? why don't the russian people know? >> they do know. but it's been going on for centuries. they've learned, i track it back to ivan the terrible. and people are so accustomed to hardship in their lives, to death, to famine, to all kinds of terrible hardships that we never encounter. and so if there is something that happens to something to someone very close to them, to your relative, to your mother,

to your aunt, to your daughter, you care. if it's a murder of someone next door of the village next door, maybe you could care. but you don't care. and you go on with your life. >> you profile six lives and deaths of six different russians in the book. you want to talk about one? >> sure. what about paul, i think that's a good one. he's a good one because he's an aberration. paul was the editor and chief of "forbes" the russia edition. he grew up in new york. his gram of cocaine is russian aristocrat. he went back there thinking about he was going to live his life as his uncles and grandfather described as he was

growing up. what he found was the chi os so that when putin became president, he cheered. he was a huge fan of putin. he described him that way in his articles. this was very dramatic. how could this guy who was such a fan of putin's be murdered? putin himself in the other murderedders that i describe, putin totally indifferent about these deaths. even in the -- in his interview about the death of another subject who i -- who's murder i describe. he was derisive about her. but with paul, he actually went to new york when he was in new york after his death. he visited with the widow. and he expressed his sympathy. and what does this -- what does this tell me?

and what it tells one that the culture of death is bigger than putin. it's even bigger than putin. >> joining us now on book tv is morgan. you are here at the national book awards. do you have any finalist? >> i don't. but i'm on the board of the national book foundation. so i'm very excited that we are celebrating our 60th. we had our contest to name the book. i have the honor of announcing that tonight. so it's an exciting night. >> well, let's talk economies. what's the economic situation for grove atlantic right now? >> grove atlantic consistents of two old, grove press founded in 1951 and atlantic founded in 1917. we are privately owned. myself and a couple others of my fames. -- families. we don't have the pressures.

we also do about 50% of our business off of our old list. henry miller, samuel bucket, that gives us a kind of stability. it's tough out there. i was just saying upstairs to someone, you work harder to sell fewer books. you look at the newspaper or magazine, we're doing okay. haven't had to fire anybody, in fact, i'm thinking about hiring someone. i'll talk some sense before i do that. >> why do you think people are reading less? >> there's so many other demands on their time. but, you know, when you say they are reading less? they are probably reading more. literacy is spreading. but books are probably not quite as central to the media and to the culture as they have been for the last 200 years. so they are moving a little bit over to the edge. that happens to opera, theater,

and happening to magazines and newspapers. but, if you are looking to serious discourse about a subject, history of al qaeda, read larry wright's book. book after book, vietnam, on and on. books do something that no other medium can do. that's one the reasons that we're more protected from internet. so books are down. but not catastrophically. >> what are you reading? >> i'm reading "the finalist." i have a number of them on my kindle. i felt obligated to look at them. i had 15 books on my kindle. i would have been carrying a giant, heavy bag. sorry to my independent book sellers friends who aren't participating. i'm loveing my whole collection

of stories. and one the great thing about these awards, it brings to all of our attention, 20 very worthy books. i'm looking forward to reading all of them. >> grove/atlantic is the company, and morgan entrekin is the publisher. >> in his latest book, tracy kidder follows a medical student after surviving the genocide through rwanda. they explore the issues of health care, immigration, with and justice in the united states. this talk is just over half an hour. [applause] >> now we're going to hear some more. we live in something of a

nonfiction age. now the reality dominates television. documentaries have never been more popular and movies. and the memoir has replaced the novel as the dominant form of creative fiction. despite the rich outpouring of recent years, a case could be made that tracy kidder maybe the very best nonfiction writer. he is, in fact, the very definition of a literary journalist, of the reporter with a sympathetic imagination and the still of a master craftsman. tracy kidder has produced work of the highest order since it's early years. his first book, the soul of a new machine, the thought of the emerging computer revolution came out to rave reviews and achieve that rare set that one both the pulitzer price and national book award in 1982.

since then he has improved his metals in books. 1985 "house" takes us into the day to day as the triumphs of his own attempt to build a home. for among school children, he sent five months in the mixed classroom of a 5th grade teacher e to know in details what's wrong and what's right with our educational system. hometown published in 2000, he cast his eye on the american town of 30,000 with the main street and cast of real life politicians and police officers. mountains beyond mountains published in 2000 is the story of a doctor, harvard professor who shows that it is possible to help the most separate of poor people in haiti, peru, cuba, and russia.

i won't tell you much about our new book. but "the new york times" wrote of it that mr. kidder has a mast industry of complex topics. this book is at its finest the examination of the nature of human charity and goodwill. tracy kidder is a master of nonfiction knavetives. please welcome with tracy kidder. [applause] >> thank you. it's nice to be here. i'm going to talk a while and read a little, and i'm going to show you some pictures. i prayed that the story has not been told, i'm going to tell it again. a young medical student theirly survived the onset of the native war of burundi. he survives because he left the door to his room open and the

men who would have killed him assumed he had already fled. he made a 6-month long on escape and then from the genocide in rwanda and then back to burundi and almost by accident he got transported to new york city. he arrived at jfk with $200, no english, a visa obtained under false pretenses, although that has been fixed. no friends, no relations, and memories of horrors so fresh that he confused past and present. he got lost for most of the day on the subway. he delivered groceries, at night he slept in central park. then one day, he delivered groceries to a small catholic church where he met an exnone who decided