particular democracy. i guess because it empowers the average guy in a way they find deplorable. i'm having trouble scoring that with calls on the left. it's always for more democracy. i mean, the 17th amendment, the calls for the abolition of the college, seems like on the left, calling for more direct democracy, and i'm having trouble squaring it. >> stick with the word "directings" that's crucial. they want more direct democracy to create a centralize the society so when you control the center, you control the society. they are opposed to republicanism, small r. self-government on local levels k responsibility on the the state and local level, and a

lively fertile congress, something we don't have. opposed to the college, but only in the years when they lose. other years they are happy. i mean, i wouldn't take this too seriously. this is something that is tactical. the filibuster is tactical. is that an example, kind of an example of direct democracy? wouldn't be a good example because it precludes the debate and discussion. that's the whole purpose of the filibuster. it's deeply anticonstitutional. deeply, deeply. not in the literal sense, but in the structural sense of the spirit of the constitution. >> a question here i missed. oh, yes, go ahead. then you. >> all right.

>> you've been talking about the writers of the time, and i was wondering, these writers, writers of the whole lost generation of the 20s used to be the biggest writers. when i was in school, they were begin to us to reed in american literature, and now largely gone. why do you think that is? >> first of all, they read theory, not american literature, i mean, academia as we knew it -- i assume you're roughly my age, in your 30s -- >> 29. [laughter] >> people in college don't read. i taught for years at cooper union, and i don't know how many know it, a small school, on full scholarship, the top 1% of the american college student, and one of the reasons i retired was the students didn't read anymore. it was pointless. how can you have a discussion or talk about thing with them and no vocab, and they were good kids, hard working, nice kids,

but they did not read. it's not just the not reading american literaturings. they are not reading anythingment as for the writers, yes, they -- through the 1970s and 80 #s, i would say is there were on the -- at the top of people's list of things who people had it. you had to read f. scott fitzgerald. what it takes to be a college graduate now is not much. >> weekly standard, and i was kind of -- how you said liberalism how you described and the democratic party as a whole because it is kind of hard to

it's seems to me that is major democratic politicians in the past several ri, and truman and kennedy, has this profile, so i wonder how this fits into the majority. >> think about true mapp for a minute. truman was an old fashioned democrat, belonging to every old fashioned club in missouri. a slapper, a hill fellow well met. author dispiased truman. they wanted them off the ticket in 1948. they hoped to have eisenhower run even though they didn't know what he represented, but he was not truman. he was too much a normal guy, dbt want that. what they like about kennedy, now, think about it, kennedy's father, joe kennedy, was not a

pleasant guy in world war ii. [laughter] robert kennedy worked for joe mccarthy. whaftion appealing about this? what was appealing about the guy was he was not ordinary, didn't come from the middle classes, but represented a cut that was above. elevating american taste. the big change as a force collapsed with tromping of mcgovernism, and then reagan's republicans three electoral victories in the 1980s. liberalism reconstructs itself in the 1990s when labor reconstructs itself in public sector unionism. that's dwr i say what happened

in new york is an expression of the larger trend. andy stern, created the force that it is said, and i think, i quote in the book said correctly, it is the single most powerful political force in the united states. he's right. we'll have it deal with this into the future. >> please join me in thinking fred for a wonderful lecture. [applause] he'll sign books outside and for the c-span audience, you can buy this on amazon. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm author brooks, president of the american enterprise institute, and it's a distinct pleasure and honor to be with you today and holiness, and panel of the distinguished guests in the session and session that follows at the mind life institute. this is a historic day for the american enterprise institute joined with one of the most respected religious leaders in our world to talk about the issues that are pressing against us in the wake of the international financial crisis and in a session entitled "moral

free enterprise," why are we here to to talk about what matters to us the mostment right know, we have an opportunity at this historic juncture in world economics to talk in and out about money, not just about money and business practices and what concerns us the most. our friends at the institute have shown us clearly there's certain things that are most concentric to holiness that have been talked about for years. what are they? faith, family, community, work. not money. interestingly. now, as the president of the american enterprise institute, as an economist, it hurts me to tell you that money's not on the list. yet, it's true. it's true. why is that? why is work on the list of the most important things for human happiness? when it's not money. the answer is earning our success, the belief that we are creating value with our lives,

creating value in the lives of other people. if we can earn our success. if we have the dignity as individuals to do this, nothing can hold our world back, and there's no greater exemplar for the set of the ideas than his holiness, yet the system that we believe can make this most possible, the free enterprise system, is under question today. it's under question because people feel legitimately that they have been left behind in the wake of the great recession. here's the question, is the free enterprise system still the best system to pursue our happiness, it lead a good life? have we become so materialistic? do we need to reorder priorities towards higher ends? we have a panel of experts that discuss this with his holiness. now, to begin with, of course, we are joined by none other than than the dally llama, and you're aware of that, the 14th became

the leader of the di bet tan baddist faith in 1950, and in 1959, forced to leave tibet because of persecution, and since that time, he's maintained the dibetan government in exile in india, travels the world, almost all year round advocating for the welfare of the people, a noble cause, teaching buddhism and talking about how passion is the source of a happy human life. your holness. >> we are joined by three leaders. >> [inaudible] >> hello and good morning. >> i said not only that. [laughter] >> translator: the literal meaning of the phrase, it stands

for auspiciousness and well being and happiness so the happy and well through auspicious. [laughter] >> okay. i love that. [laughter] this is such a good day. [laughter] i just can't tell you people. [laughter] anyway, i digress. joined on i right by the distinguished members of our academic community. to the right, dean of the columbia business school and former chasm of the president's counsel of the economic adviser. next is dan lobe, founder of the hedge fund third point capital, and then john height, ethic leadership in stern school of business. all three of these men have done foundational work in the respected areas of administration, policy, academia, and business about the nature of human happiness in the morality of the free enterprise systemmings and each one gives perspectives in five minutes of

the work they've been doing followed by comments from his holiness interspersed with questions along the way, and if we have time, some questions from the audience. now, that's not necessarily the case, but don't be it's appointed because we follow this with a second session from our wonderful friends at the mind life institute,, about the conjunctions with the life, the human brain, and nature of a truly flourishing existence. your holiness, you want to start with opening remarks? >> nothing. [laughter] >> for me, new day stock, so i'm looking forward. having discussions.

the very purpose of such meetings is they try to seek the right method to bring happy life. happy individual. ultimately happy family. happy community. happy nation. ultimately happy world. we are part of the world. so happy world. where does it start? from government? no. from united nations? no. from individuals. humanity is combination of individuals. construction work must start from individuals; then you can

make little contribution. then from there, from all sides, no malt ere what derivation, what religious faith. we are human beings. ..

>> the difference of the family that was crowned. even if it was in the family. lower the individual. in the boarding something different. with new knowledge or experience so recently

cooperation it humanity. because of climate change in global warming. also the population increasing. so not like the ancient times. some people come from the outside. but multiracial like that. with this wonderful nation. but often america is not.

but now the reality west indies to you and south asia and north. so now we must think as human beings. no problem. [laughter] so you can see.

[laughter] >> so with the future of the community in this century people are ready to become something very, very important. know this century also. as it should be. this century now we must

create. they come for action not wishful thinking. but in my daily life four or five hours, a meditation. all your wishes are materialize through prayer. your action is more important. but they cannot give you what you want. what is fate? you are your own master.

since we're all created by god there for with a spark. to give that self-confidence. if he really believe that that, nobody would say no. be full of compassion. in the creators.

it and believe it or not. but biologically and the beginning of the life is so important in and to those people through their childhood eye and a champion to those individuals but

from deep inside. any way. you're all believers in have the gift. why would livestock be? -- would it be? [laughter] so i of looking forward to

the discussions. >> host: now we will turn to the panel on the basis of what their work is showing them today about the economic system its economic crisis and we will start with led from the business school at columbia university and tear of of the president's council of economic advisers under president bush and tell the number of distinguished positions of. >> your holiness i know that i speak for the entirety of this engagement. arthur i am grateful because frankly your work takes economics out of the dismal. [laughter] so i want to talk about the five step argued that i have made for the morality id

economic success of the free enterprise system. but my favorite teaching is to use the thin -- slipped to two freshmen principles and i always say i'm coming with two questions that trudy to economics. why is so whole world rich? what could we do to achieve mass prosperity in society? i said haig with the every will answer together. to make the free enterprise economies have demonstrated its relative success economists will tell you the first second m third industrial revolution surveyed possible by the support of property rights

from economic freedom. we have seen extreme poverty china, india and sub-saharan africa made possible not like a for inaction but by opening markets with freedom the and commerce. on the negative side the spectacular economic failure of the soviet union collapsed roof the ongoing failure started to the same place as south korea. also free enterprise is critical with the economic success to find a the market goes that we work on two very important social goals that is held up in his remarks. entrepreneur yours would dash are not directed to have a search for opportunity with the system

that they if the units prosperity by investing in firms have become successful agent by allowing the outmoded firms to fail the advance of society. this is about dynamism to talk about creative destruction of the new replacing the old level by to talk about non destructive creation of a bridge new things that is the source of innovation and wealth. like columbia colleague has noted many times the satisfaction in the economy is highly positive correlated. the third point is concerns for status economy with the lack of incentives of innovation for entrepreneur with those living standards could be lacking. traditional approach to foreign aid relative to

encourage rapid does business that has largely failed. large government rolls to invite rent seeking with corruption in something this country needs to take heed of as well. but those capitalist economies face cautions. generating average growth but not everyone is average. the conclusion with the ability to obtain a meaningful work is the objective that has to be maintained with dynamism. the social safety is important but what is more important is working is the symbol of stability but also at pre-empting social mobility. free enterprise society is need to contemplate a marshall plan within themselves to reduce the work opportunities.

the final point is while economists often talk about economic efficiency or prosperity in economic terms , one could go back to adam smith in a classical writers to make the defense moral. call the natural liberty the power to buy yen sell to make a deal with whomever you like. not just a teacher of cobbers but a moral society. dignity is also a symbol with mutual respect for each other's talent you've hard work. arthur has said many times that to occur and success through the fruit of your own creativity is the important moral objective

and satisfaction not just gdp. to leave you with a couple of thoughts, a free enterprise society is have more dispersed power. the power is spread out evenly with the population and now with a single controlling government for central planning. those systems are less likely to reform, and adapt it be present in the modern world and it has the natural buffer. to begin our goal ought to be celebrate the success of the free enterprise economy to stretched that goal to mass prosperity. that is morally right and economically achievable. >> thank you. glenn hubbard. dr. hubbard has told us a free enterprise system is naturally the most moral of

economic systems but we have much more to do to include more people from around the world. do you agree with this and how do we make it more effective? >>. >> translator: one of the questions you ask your students why isn't a pretty rich? why can't we make everybody rich? so what sort of criteria are you using? >> i just meant was the idea

is why isn't the whole world as prosperous as the most prosperous? why is it the united states is a rich country with other countries are not? >> you use the word rich. that meeting which. that is impossible. [laughter] then perhaps. [laughter] but to the point yes they have activities is individual initiative. as i mentioned before.

therefore the whole world a matter how much the effort it takes but then there is china. then they feel compelled. it is a capitalist system. things have been very, very realistic but the reality seems to change. just like that. so that really brought prosperity at the same time

to also use it. in india to have a democracy in the country with the levers of control. to be successful. that is a fact of reality to show some thinking. to see if it is not efficient so now more or

less with the sentiment reid nato more sense of concern and finally a sense of humanity. $0.1 of one. of collectivities. to become constructive and then i think has happened with literally it will change or divide but i myself, i don't know. [laughter] of less i study about the

world economics. [laughter] bid to become a student of you. [laughter] >> thank you your holiness. [laughter] >> here is the joint offering. [laughter] >> next we turn to the prospective of days and who says the founder is the chief executive officer this is deeply involved in the finances here is the united states. with eastern in western thought. he will give us his perspective on what we see in these senses community today. >> i just want to say your

holiness, it is an incredible honor to be here with you today. to be the spiritual leader of the tibetan people. i groped with my dad would be your age today if he were still of life is so i carried his parent with three. also to be if the leader of the capitalist people under brooks. [laughter] i am not sure my dad would be quite as proud of that. [laughter] but it could happen. [laughter] i started my fund 1985 with $3 million under management. i started in june of that year in fact, my teacher is here.

about five months after i started my yoga teacher convinced me to go to india to study yoga with a master. it was an unusual decision i got a call from a friend that said don't do that. it is a huge mistake. everybody will thank you are a flake for leaving your business to study yoga for a month a and mind you there were no internet connections , sulfone service was non existent but i went anyway and i had a great month. it launched be into a lifelong passion for spirituality and contemplation that meditation that, with

contemplation in meditation not just for permits or box but for people who can improve fall over lives. so i will talk a little bit about statistics around that. to how contemplation makes us better decision makers in by it is important to our system and i will close with my experiences on the front lines of the market's how to put this together. just a couple of quick lessons from yoda and it is crucial as investor to be a decision maker. one of the first lessons that you learned in yoga means it quiets of fluctuations of the mind if it is consistent with what

his holiness says you cannot be a happy person if your mind is not at ease. second, that we put ourselves into difficult positions but to create a sense of equanimity in those decisions in those situations to persevere in the verge making good choices. i was with a navy seal last night telling about his trading. that is appropriate training for someone who is a warrior but certainly also what dalai lama teaches in what i learned from yoga it is a principal for all of us to be better decision makers. one of the of the things that we've learned is that

life is described as a real with many spokes at the center should be your heart tuned moral grounding. so when we make choices not from the standpoint of a favorable outcome but as dalai lama said yesterday make sure that we make decisions hatter consistently moral. how does this help me as a business person? on the blind hand to we have three types of decisions with three court decisions

you are honest, treat people as you would like. second, the decisions which are a framework around sports, and a framework for hall you ski and your legs are distributed a certain way. something you have seen time and time again. in the third type of decision we have them in our own world but some of them may file -- fall into a pattern but sometimes it is just new territory. that is rare practice enables us to be more creative to make better decisions. why my spending all this time? we are lucky as a dalai lama said we are in a system that

caters the individuals. not all countries or systems give us those traces. -- choices. client -- plan talked about the up description of power to have a system that comes down to the individual makes for more effective organization to trust individuals to make good decisions. so now i will go to the capital markets. now i am in the business to make many decisions all day long. people, markets, stocks, but i will talk about the market's themselves and how they relate to the discussion of prosperity and why the markets make the world a better place.

there is a common view that financial markets are good in the sense that if someone has a new idea with a venture capitalist, if they could create a business around that innovation and growth you would get the guy thrown out of the system everything from fedex and about was started from this framework. every petty appreciates the importance of robust capital markets in and the ipo markets. that is the tip of the iceberg. . .

and sometimes you think that people look at these things in isolation, and they missed the importance of all of this, and this is talking about two concepts. one is liquidity and one is the availability of low-cost capital. and those two things are critical ingredients to the system we have and only exist if you have the rule of law, and if you have people that feel confidence in the system we have. so, sometimes you'll see

situations where creditors are treated badly. and you might feel like, well, who are those creditors? they're a bunch of vultures. let's change the rules now. and you might say, well, unappealing people who are buying the credit, let's just hang them out to dry. the problem is the people who suffer are not just the investors in that particular credit situation. it's the entire system. the entire system relies on the rule of law and the dependability and the knowledge they've they don't get their money back there's a system where they can rehabilitate and restructure whatever it is they invested in. there's the benefit of people wind vest their capital. example the people that invest -- invest for pension plans, the retirement funds, individuals who are providing for their future. so, it's a great system.

there's no other system that can create the sort of prosperity that we have, the kind of innovation. it isn't perfect, though, and folks are left behind. i want to close by saying, what -- grant mentioned how important to have a marshall plan like this, the most important is education and getting people in the system. my philanthropic energy is addressed toward how to get a broad base of less privileged people. folks that have been -- families written off by the system. i'll tell you one thing, it's a myth that poor people can't learn and can't achieve at the same level as white rich kids: we have a school on the board of success academy charter school. a school in the bronx next poorest congressional district in the country, the children

scored number three in new york state in math and one in two were in gifted and talents schools. so it's possible. there's a lot of things to do. mine is education. i think that will help. we need a great safety net. but we need to -- as glen said, bring has many people into the system as we can so they can flourish. thank you very much. applause place. >> your holiness. mr. lobe covered at a lot of territory but the talked about for the free enterprise system to -- we require government regimes that protect the property lights with individuals. i know you travel all over the world. you talk to people in opressed countries in free countries. what do you think our nations can do more to protect the property rights of individuals

so that our system can bring more poor people out of poverty? >> comprehensive. wonderful. i think basically things are interconnected. so, is something independent, then we only concern about that,

usually you call expert. but the other thing, everything is interconnected. so, the property -- have to look more holistic. larger picture. so think individual initiative, that also entirely depend on self-confidence, self-confidence and sometimes blind risk, over self-confidence. that's dangerous. so education also is a more holistic education. then as you mentioned, i think the whole system -- i think here the judicial system, the rule of law, very, very important, and

anyway, among people, some -- strange people or wicked people. so, the law. so, all this i think the combinations -- you can see many factors that are really intertwined. and you mention the trust, even -- trust is important. so trust very much in order to develop trust honest, truthful. very, very important. so, in these, in that respect, i think the more self-centered

attitude then some sort of -- possible to develop differences from reality. say something nice. but think of something different. then immediately destroy trust. so, honest, transparent. so long -- no room for cheat. because you take care about death. all these thing depend on the rest of the community. so trust very, very important. you see, you remain same person

and hoping for more trust from others is illogical. we must show sincerity, honest, truthful. so, this cannot produce by drug. but to -- the human nature, brotherhood, sisterhood. now to education. further nurtures quality or -- for that i really believe is the -- modern education is something. so, usually when we sort of --

love, compassion, these things, we reach the state that some people -- i think it's -- some people feel -- then very immediate. also i think the human being, humanity, really need more central universal responsibility as commitment. thank you. now to listen yesterday and today, i develop more respect. [applause]

otherwise my impression capitalism only take money, then exploitation. >> but learn from your holiness over the last few days, can be a blessing in everyone, including the poor, but it will not be if it's not a executed and practiced on the basis of brotherhood, compassion, and moral living, and that's what we're learning from you these last few days. so our respect for capitalism was solid for coming in, ask our respect temperature the underlying principles that can make it live up to its promise come from you. we november on now -- move on now to jonathan hite. the world's leading expert on the science of morality, and has

given these ideas from a -- a great deal of thought. john hite. >> thank you. this is such a wonderful day when a religious leader, revered religious leader who is beloved on the left, comes to a free market think tank runs bay man who seems to be arguing -- your most recent argument is conservatives should fight for justice and this is scrambling all the categories that makes me so excited we might break out of the rut we have been in for so many years about the rule of business and government. i'd like to tell you three stories about capitalism. is a holiness -- well, his holiness embraced the first story until i guess about five minute ago. i discovered maybe he is moving on to the second story told by glen and dan. but i'd like to urge is that he

then devote his effort to helping us write the third story. so here the are. the first story is that capitalism is exploitation and it goes like this. once upon a time work was real and authentic. farmers raised crops, craftsmen made goods, people traded these goods locally, and that trade strengthened local communities. but then one day, capitalism was invented and darkness spread across the land. the capitalises developed ingenious techniques for wringing more work and wallet out of the workers and suck up the surplus wealth for themes, used the wealth to buy political power, making rest of us their pawns forever. the end. now, in the wonderful recent book "why nations fail" show there's a great deal of

throughout to this story in most nations at some times. economic institutions have been distract -- ex-tracktive and not inclusive. one -- we judge people based on their intentions and if people do something intending to help us, we don't tend to give them much credit. this is certainly what happens to business people who enrich our lives. but are we grateful? s a adam smith put it. it's from the benevolence of the butcher, the baker -- let's be grateful for better technical equipment -- okay. it's not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interests. we may praise their skills but we never praise their virtue.

in fact we see them as selfish, and this, i believe, is the view that his holyiness held until five minutes ago. i first met his holiness at the university of southern california three years ago and at that conference i asked him, what kind of government would you like to see in tibet if you could advise? and his response was this, quote: between socialism and capital rhythm i'm a socialist, and i always describe myself as a marxist but not a leninist. in my mind, marxism is the only economic theory that expresses its sense of concern about equal distribution and that is a moral thing. whereas capitalism is about how to make a profit, only that. and in order to get more profit, there is no hesitation to exploit. but what if we were to judge people and ideologies not by their intentions but by they're

affect? that would take us to the second story, which was told so ably by glen and dan. i can abbreviate it. it might go like this: once upon a time, and for thousands of years, almost everybody was poor and most people were cerfs or slaves. then one day some good institutions were invented in britain and holland, and these democratic institutions put checks on the exploit tatetive power of the elite, which let to the creation of economic institutions, that supported private property rights, risk-taking, and innovation. free market tappallism was born and spread across europe and english colonies. in a few centuries poverty disappeared from these fortunate countries. not only that, but people got dignity and safety and longevity. free market capitalism in this

story is our saviour, and marxism is the devil. in the last 30 year dozens of countries have embrace ordinary saviour and kicked out the devil, and if they can spread the gospel to the rest of the world we'll soon enter a golden age. the end. so, that's of course told much more ably with more detail by the previous speakers but these are sets offedies percolating through the enter -- intellectual class for centuries. free markets are really miracles. i cam to see this -- i joined the stern school of business and i'm seeing how miracle yourself it is that you can turn water into wine, vast quantitieses of wipe, at low, low prices, as long as the vineyard owners can get access to credit and

distribution and it's a miracle. people come to worship them. a bestic principle is that more blinds and buys. and when people come together around a shared worship of some sacred object it makes them cohesive and able to work together but blinds them to the faults and felonieses to nuance -- faults and flaws and nuance, and pope francis pointed this out when he said -- he was criticizing those who embraced the second story. he said, quote, accrued and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the workings of the prevailing economic system and this brings us to the third story about capitalism. a story that isn't written but but one that we'll be writing in the 21st century. it begins like this in the

1990s -- once upon a time in the 1990s, capitalism triumphed over all other forms of economic organization and the entire planet began moving towards prosperity. but we didn't live happily ever after. in fact, this period marked the beginning of a new chapter where we discovered a bunch of problems we didn't see before or didn't appreciate before. the gap between and if poor within nations began to shoot up. economic gains went mostly to the rich, who began increasingly to use their wealth to buy legislators and laws, just as was charged by the first story. the problem of global warming was first recognized. and just as asia was beginning to industrialize, making it so much harder to solve and leading to forecasts of broken cities.

-- without strong government oversight, and as values expand beyond the market place into medicine and education and family life, many people began to feel somehow cheapened as though something valuable had been lost. so, this is our challenge for the 21st century. we celebrate the fact that more than a billion people have been lifted out of poverty in recent decades by free markets. yet we know we can do better. as both of the prior speakers pointed out. if we can strip away the anger, the worship and the ideology, we can look more clearly and openly at capitalism, its ethical challenges and that's what our panel is about. we can see the supply chains that keep our shelves stocked originate in the dangerous sweat shops of bangladesh. we can measure the polluted care

and the empty oceans we're bequeathing to our children. and we can have a more nuanced view of equality of opportunity, particularly here in america, where wealth buys your children a much, much better starting line in the race of life. so let us be grateful to the butcher, the brewer, and the baker, even when they are corporations. let us look back in awe at the political accomplishment -- political and economic changes that brought us from the first story to the second story, at least in many of the mosted a vanned nations economically, and then let us work together to write this third story, story that must draw on insight from the political left and right and that must draw on insights from secular thinkers and religious leaders alike. in the story about capitalism

that could embraced by pope francis, by his holiness and the rest of the panel. let's find out. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> your holiness, dr. haidt told us stories about the capitalist system that are at odds. and all three are common today in america and all around the world. his conclusion that the capitalist system can be the greatest blessing in the history of mannedkind but it has certain dangers and the dangers come from ignoring once again, was we talk about again and again today, those who are being left behind. now, we understand that in theory. but to understand in practice those who are more vulnerable than we are, those who are weaker, but that when each of us examines our conscious tonight

before we good to sleep, we can say did everything i did today help those who are weaker than me? when we can answer the question in the atermtive, what practical advice you give us for helping the poor enjoy the blessings of the free enterprise system that every person in this room is enjoying today. >> i don't know. i'm -- the process, the validation, analyze, analyze. analyze the obvious nature of one's self and also the whole

world, the whole universe, all these things, but -- [inaudible] then these are the complicated sort of view. finally, since the things are heavily interdependent, therefore the city for your own interest. you have to take seriously others. taking care more about others is not selfless. best thing for your future is to take care of other. basically we are social animal.

one individual, a community. communities are -- the community's future depends on the nation. the individual nation's future depends on humanity. so if you use our intelligence, the reality, then not blind selfishly, but usually -- they are selfish. important for our own survival. cannot survive without. so, therefore, -- but is selfish. should be why selfish, rather than foolish selfish. many problem, just think of one's self and don't care about other's well-being, it arely --

utterly used up. that it. i think all tradition is the same message, love, compassion, and for different message of tolerance, message of forgiveness, and in order to sustain -- the extreme selfish, too much greed, so therefore, contentment. now these -- i think not deficit because of the course of things. simply did this life or this

very life, comfortable life, very much related. so now we need -- in order to more deep practice we are using some -- now we must -- don't talk these things but this life -- everybody who are more peaceful, more happier, more friendly world. nobody want nuclear weapon or war. the days of television, beating,

killing. so, therefore, these things -- everybody still loves peaceful life. some trust, someone trust you, you feel happy, and that automatically develop some responsibility, start to happen. not talking about next life. not talking about health.

that is not very good. out of fear, some enthusiasm. not very good. so, anyway, i think we can educate people for taking care of rest of humanity. i think modern education, modern day -- i think education is so important. through education we can promote this. 10 years, 20 years.

so, whether you live it or not, you should touch. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have a lot more in store for you but i want to sum up the four points what we learn from his holiness this morning and then i want to take a moment for gratitude. the four points we learned on the basis of the wisdom from our colleagues here, number one, each one of us, not withstanding the differences we have, including each one of us not even here today, those who of rich and poor in other countries, each of us is one in seven billion and understanding our common humidityity is the basis to spread the blessings of all we do. and the free enterprise system we came here to discuss is ablation -- a blessing but has to be predicated on moral living

from each one of us. the third is that moral living is a practice, and it's a practice of compassion, and sense of shared humanity. the fourth lesson is really the good news that we have gotten here today, which is the principles and practices of global brotherhood and global sisterhood are in each one of our hands, to practice and to teach, but there's an affirming lesson, something we can good away from, from this important session today in each one of our lines of work in everything we do to make a better world, this is our charge, our privilege, this is our obligation in a very joyful sense. this brings us back to the subject of happiness, which is our next session. from our friends at the mind and life institute. a quick moment of gratitude. these programs that we have had over the past two days didn't come about spontaneously. they never do. we first have to start by thinking his holiness' just

amazing team with special thinks to -- from the tibet administration and the dali llama and his own administration. is he here today? thank you so much. [applause] >> second we have to recognize the central tibetan administration, and the prime minister of tibet. he is not here. the prime minister is not with us today. as well as -- kador who is with us here today. [applause] >> ai's key will be operation with his holiness the dali lamb ya came about from the vision of radio free asia. contacted aei with the concept we want to thank them for that.

[applause] >> the intellectual collaboration you'll see here today between the aei and the mind and life institute. we'll follow up this program with their own session, unlocking the mind and human happiness in a moment i'll turn the moderator role over to arthur, who will be working with his holiness the dalai lama and has done so for decade. so we're grateful for joining us. intellectually this could not have happened if it weren't for glen, and john. our program today has been made possible by third point capital and other supporters of aei, including aei supporters, our wonderful trustees, scholars and

staff and our entire community, and especially today my deep gratitude for all of this work for many decades that changed all of our hearts, his holiness, the dalai lama. [applause] >> we're just getting started. please stay seated. we'll change up the program and the audience. >> president obama's national economic council director, gene spurling, says the next budget is intended to help economic growth and includes deficit savings proposals. mr. sperling also spoke about the health of the u.s. economy at an event posted by politico on thursday. >> are we at another spring moment in the economy where we'll see it decelerate again this year or should we be hopeful for the years of the

year and it's been a crumby winter and it will be better in the spring. >> i think a lot of people are in the same place, which i think they look at the fundments and see a certain amount of momentum. i think the fact that it looks like we won't have the self-inflicted wound of a threat of a default or government shutdown will be good for certainty. i think that obviously i think many people saw good enough news about the longer term that it affected policies at the fed, affected other people's transportation transservings. those weren't on treasure things. those were on solid underlying trends. so it's likely that a lot of what we have seen is more weather-related. but we all have responsibility to look. i think everybody is trying to figure out how much was weather-related. i would still be -- i would be

cautiously optimistic that the general notion that there are positive trends in the economy, even during this period we have seen unemployment rate of 6.6%. the last jobs number was obviously not as good as we'd like, but it was projected to be 180,000, and private sector-wise it was 143,000. the other thing is what is happening at the state and local level. if you want to what is frustrating for us or the president, is when you look and city that under our administration, during this recovery, we have lost about 677,000 government, state and local jobs. so, president asked one day, what if state and local jobs had the same growth as they did in the past recoveries? unemployment would be 5.8% right now. if you look at private seconder gdp, the private sector

componentness the recovery, since it started, it's about 3.5%. so i think to the degree that we could see less contraction from the state and local government side, a little more certainty issue think there's some reason for optimism. one thing some people have pointed to is a consumer confidence in small business confidence have stayed fairly positive. those are two things that are likely not affected by weather as much. so, i'd say cautious opt system -- optimism but everybody in the economics world will be looking at the numbers to see how much was weather-related or whether something changed. i would still be cautiously optimistic that we're having increased momentum in the recovery with the following caveat. it's not good enough. >> the all-new c-span.org web site is now mobile friendly. that means you can access our comprehensive coverage of politics, nonfiction books, and

american history, where you want, when you want, and how you want. our new site's responsive design scales to fits any of your screenes, from the monitor of your desk top computer to your laptop, tablet, or smart smartphone, whether you're at home, at the office or on the go, you can watch c-span. the new c-span.org makes it easy for you to keep an eye on what is happening in washington. >> with congress in recess, we'll bring you booktv this week on c-span 2. it n his book "the great debate" exploring the political left and right in america. that's next. and then fred siegel, and his

book, how liberalism has undermindded the middle class. >> this weekend on c-span, the national governors association kicks off their winter meeting, live saturday morning at 10:00 ewith an openings news conference and panels on early education, jobs, and prescription drug abuse, and talk to the mon. s men author, the story of the allied focus on recovers artifacts stolen by nazis, and on c-span 3, archives by government, industry, educational institutions. sunday at 4:00 p.m. >> up next, the book -- the great debate" mr. levin, the

founder of the quarterly journal, national affairs, talks about the origin of political left-right debate. he spoke with jonah goldberg of the national review. >> host: hi, yuval. hello. >> host: welcome to c-span. i'm going to be grilling you on your new book, "the great debate." and i'll try to do my best by lan, which means a lot of profanity, and we'll see writ goes. let's just start right off the bat. who wassed -- who was edmund burk, a political thinker and writer in thiolase 18th 18th century. northern 1729. lived until 1797. his political career it from the late 1760s until his career,

an intellectual career. was as much a thinker as a politician, and the thinking he did was about how to help his country through a period of intense change and tension and crisis from the american war through a crisis through the french revolution and the european war that followed. burke was a voice for sustaining continuity through change and was an enemy of the radicalism of the french revolution but was a reformer of british institutions in an effort to save them and fix them. so he has come to be known as one of the fathers of modern conservativism. >> host: was he known as the father of modern conservativism before burke? >> guest: he describes him as belong though party of

conservation. the party conservative didn't exist but in the understand himself in the effort to save the british system at a time when it was genuinely threatened by political radicalism. it makes sense to think of him as the father of modern conservative. but he what a whig, not a torry, an opponent of slavery and favored limits on the power of the king. so he wasn't a person who would have been thought of as a conservative in continental europe, but for anglo-american conservativism, he has been understand that way before kirk. >> host: who what thomas payne. >> guest: an english been immigrant to america. and his story is quite different. he began life in a working class family in england, through a

series of terrible misadventures, found himself basically a bankrupt collector, living in london, but one with an extraordinary self-education in philosophy and political thought and science, and he encountered benjamin franklin, the representative of northwestern colonies in britain, and franklin got to know him a little, very little, and suggested to him that he should try going do america and starting over, and paine -- payne did that and quickly became an important figure in intellectual figures in pennsylvania. he was the editor of a small magazine, a writer, as the american revolution began to brew he became a very -- he wrote common sense, the great pamphlet that persuaded so many people to back the cause of independence, who wrote the crisis papers, and played a part. i think it's fair to call him a member of the founding generation, and ten years later,

less known to us americans, payne went to france and became an important spokesman for the french revolutionary. a grate champion to the english speak world. made the case for the radicalism of the revolution in france and british and american audiences. he was a real revolutionary, believer in the need to break with the past in order to undo the terrible injustices the european regimes in his view were committing on their people. and he wanted always to find ways to apply the rite political principles to society, to arrive at greater equality, greater individual liberty, and so we think of him as one of our founders about he was more radical than the american revolution was, and in some ways much more at home than the french revolution. one of the fathers of modern radicalism and the modern left. >> host: which brings us to the title of the book "the great debate." so, can you explain what where

the title comes from? >> guest: burke and payne were engaged in an annual debate, especially around the french revolution. both of them more or less were backers of american independence, paine more explicitly sew than burke but burke supported the americans. when its came to the french revolution they were on starkly opposite sides. they had real debate. they new each other, met a few times, exchange add fair number of letters and answered one another's published writings. some of this most important writings were in response to one another. what the book argues the debate predates that delate, and the two of them were laying out two views of the liberal society what free society could be like, and the two are very much in tension with one another. they present very different idea what anglo-american libbal crimp is, what its purpose is, what it's founded in, and so it's a real argument about political

philosophy, that the book tries to draw out by putting two world views against one another and not just by reading the actual explicit debate about the revolution. you come away with two views what we ought to be with free people in a free society. and thes views that feebly conservative and radical and progressive on the other and can help us see to the bottom of the left-right debate that continues. the idea is not exactly that their relationship to today's left and right is somehow genealogical. these two kinds of views emerge almost inevitably in our society, and that burke and paine express them more clearly than we're used to seeing. >> host: for context, have there been other -- can you think of other great thinkers on either

side of the pressing issue of the day who had this open-air arguement? one of the problem with intellectual history, you say, goshings, i would have to know what john dewey would say, and this is one of the rare cases where you actually have that. can you think of any others. >> guest: a very rare thing. there's a few others on a smaller scale around the french revolution, the french revolution raised profound questions, at a time when there were people, both in britain and america, who were involved in politics who were serious political thickers, -- thinkers, which is verbal usual so you find disputes between jefferson and adams that seem to be like this debate and there's a broad public dispute in britain and america about the french revolution in general. but burke and paine, because they engaged each other so directly and because they disagreed so profoundly and i

believe because burke more than anyone who agreed with him, expressed the conservative vision of the liberal society, explicitly and fully. there aren't a lot of other voices like his, and so i think he is really what makes this debate what it is, but paine took him seriously and answered him specifically and felt he owed it to his readers and friends to address burke's arguments, and so you have a debate. a full-on debate. >> host: should probably get terminology out of the way. the french revolution is widely seen as -- actually, the terms left and right come out of the french assembly. >> guest: that's right. >> host: had to do with the seating chart. >> guest: basically the people who supported the declaration of the rights of man, the really radical statement of principles of the french revolution, more or less sat to the left of the speaker in the original assembly. the people on the right were still revolutionaries but a little less radical.

and in the press at the time, in britain and in france, they dime be referred to as left and right, and so radicals on the left more conservatives on the right. >> host: i've always bristled at this because this is a european import, and in the british parliament, the seating chart went basically with the yeas and nays and moved around depositing -- depending won was in power. >> the government sits to the right of the speaker and the common still does and the opposition party on the left. it's a problem in more ways than that. in fact the left and right of the french revolution has very little to do with our left and right. it's true one of them was more radical than the other but the idea that left and right come from the french revolution is more wrong than it is right. the actual parties to the french revolution, the aristocrats don't have anything to do with our politics or anyone's politics.

where you really fine left and right as we recognize them emerges ises in the politics of britain america around the same time. so it's fair to say left and right emerged around the french revolution but a were from a debate about the french revolution that was basically held in english. >> host: a brilliant audience. when you say, liberal society, we are not necessarily talking about liberal in the way we talk about it today, free society,. >> guest: a society that -- a society like the one you would have pound in britain in the 18th century through today, like the one you would have found in america in the 18th 18th century, a society where there's basic respect for the rights of the individual and a sense the government exists to defend and vein rick indicate the -- vindicate the rights and there's a strong government but there's an emphasis placed upon private property. this is what we basically mean

by classical liberalism, and to describe the liberal society that way means the kind of sew society we recognize as our own. one of the things about the debate is both sides accept the liberal society. it's not as radical a debate others european politics, in fact what you still tee in europe. it's not a debate between far left and far right. it's a debate within the liberal society and about the liberal society. that doesn't make it less divisive or less intense. some ways it makes its more so but more recognize able to us because it's about who we are. >> host: hayak, wrote an essay, why i'm not a conservative, and everyone points to this as proof he wasn't a conservative. but he was talking about the european conservative, and he defined. himself as an old whig.

>> guest: the term old whig comes from an essay of burke. basically as a whig who follows the ideas of the whigs in the glorious revolution, the english revolution, so a real believer in freedom and liberty but an ordered liberty and liberty as an inheritance. hayak's book opens with a sort of description of how how he is a burkan. and in that sense he is a conservative. i think his argument for why he is not conservative is why he's not a conservative in germany or france and less than britain or america. >> host: conservativism and radicalism are -- well, conservativism is the one ideology always plays consistent, depend department. a consecutive in port gal is

very different than a conservative in the united states where we're basically trying to conserve a liberal revolution. >> guest: exactly. >> host: so let's start in -- divide these chapters up into these different aspects of the sort of stanchions of the debate or whatever appropriate metaphor we can come up with. why don't we start very much at the beginning and talk about the different views of nature and history. >> guest: the book is strictured in a way that tries to take a debate about specific political eventses and pull it apart into themes that can then be understood in themselves. so that you see what the disagreement is and then what you learn from the pose you can re-apply to political events. and so basically the method of plate festival, philosophy. it begin with the question of the relationship of nature

politics. burke -- both claim their views are based in politics has to answer to human nature but very different ideas what that was, and their different ideas of what nature means in political debate has a lot to do with the views that follows to payne offers an idea of nature that is like a science idea. he understands nature as a source of rules, and rules that govern the behavior of individual particles, if you will and that holes and society is a function of the particles. like newtonian physics applied to politics. he understood that politics wasn't physics but the basic way of thinking how to get to the deepest truth behind politics. he thought the way was to go to the origin, the natural origin this prehistorical origins, and

for him that meant understanding the human being in his presocial state, because society is just a function of human beings, as many human beings together, and so to understand society you have to understand the individual human being, and in this he follows what is a fairly familiar to students of american political thought and british political thought, the model of the state of nature, a way of understanding society. so let's imagine society begins with independent individuals coming together and deciding we would be a lot better off if we lived together, if there was a mutual enforcer of laws, protect your property and safety. that's how societies form. it exists for that purpose and has to be understood as answering to the purpose, and any society that doesn't answer to that purpose, that doesn't protect our property, doesn't protect us from one another, is an illegitimate government and we have the right to overthrow it. it's a liberal vision, and from

there he begin tuesday his political thinking, and that mean his political thinking is very individualist, is right spaced and devoted to the idea of individual liberty, this defining principle of political life. edmund burke starts by looking at that and saying the problem is, no one has ever lived that way. the state of nature is an experiment, burt it's a very implausible thought experience. no human being has lived out of family or outside of society, and so to understand society bailed on what it would mean to live in a situation that no human being has ever lived in, may not be the most useful way to think about how we ought to live, and what struck him most was the radical individualism of it. burke's approach to political mouth and to nature itself begins in holees, not in parts. his sign his nature is more of an acristocratic science than

new newtonian. he says we need to understand the society and the paths that allow to us be happy, the institutions that allow to us thrive within society. so all these reasons about man and society, and in turn tries to understand what liberty means, what equality means, what society means, based on how people have lived in the real world. what has enabled people to live in just and happy ways. to him, society has to answer to human nature, and human nature is not the same thing as a kind of physics of political science. the human being is not just a rationale animal. the human being is a sentimental creature, and to ignore those things is to set yourself up for

failure, create a system that would only work with something other than human beings living in it. so, his recourse to nature, what the finds useful in the model of nature is the model of generation, inheritance, of how over time species improve, societies improve, and it happens gradually. he is writing, of course, well before darwin and revolution but offers an evolutionary model of political change. building on what we have, starting with the real world. >> host: trial and error. >> guest: exactly. so, from these two very different models of nature you see some very basic differences how to understand society. >> host: i want to come back to some of that because people that shoo know i reviewed this book, to thely trashed it -- no. actually gave at it rave review but had some disagreements or quiches about it, and --

quibbles about it but i want to come back to them. the modern ear, the thing that would shock people the most in burke's thought, is his deep skepticism about the power and limits of reason, and paine believes you can just simply reason your way through any problem, and burke almost laughs at that notion. >> guest: ya yeah. so, paine -- because he believes the political life is the application of principles and human reason, understand again in an enlightenment way, as an individual faculty of logical analysis, should allow to us fine answers to social questionses by applying our understand offering the rules to our understanding of the circumstances. it's basically a kind of science and society. a very high opinion of reason.

he is very impressed with what science is achieving in his day. living only a century after newton an incredible time for modern science. and he believes if you apply that kind of thinking to political life you could solve social problems, really so them. solve poverty, war. the kind of queue -- utopian. he thinks we can solve a lot of our social problems if we just apply our reason to right principles and to our circumstances. that means approaches the world, unnecessarily imperfect world, by being absolutely outraged at failure to. the fact that things aren't going well. ...

>> they believe if only they

find the right rules from starting over from scratch to say we will never know enough's. but what we can do is see what works to make some rest more like that. a cinch to leave the of progress to make society like its best self. a grateful process for what to do is working with society and a conservative process to save the best as a model. >> host: something i did not remember or did not know but with the phrase little platoon was be indeed around a lot but that is shorthand for the institutes of the civil society the mediating structure between the individual and the state. league, both the league's

league's, churches, schools but you point out he coined the phrase to talk about the middle-class. >> it is a tolerable mistake because he is very devoted to a civil society those institutions between the individual and the state. the big debate is that he makes the argument the institutions are legitimate power centers they are not elected, and nobody chose to gave them authority with his of wilderness between the individual and his rights. but the term little platoon comes in a passage where. is criticizing the wealthy french future and to a grand -- against the wealthy to

dismantle their society. he says you have to begin from what you offer your society but first understand what part of society the you are a part of that is good rather than turn against society as a whole. and does argues that that platoon is as much part of the economy as up parts of society. people use the phrase in vivian's is something very different. >> host: what came to my mind was the tv show -- the. i love to reach the british left take on the show with the others and they did house servants that are as

the years descenders to not see the class is lower than them treated as equals and the idea of a servant sitting with the upper crust horrifies the servant crust even more so. it got me thinking so much of the work is writing about these things it'll weeks -- it only makes sense with that cultural that he talks about that is why don't take it translates as well to american society. but knu talk about the role could his arguments have

work to in europe like britain? they are in a way be be a lack of fuel was of the that those arguments do not play as well hit. >> guest: with his descriptions of social class and with relation to their stations, britain in its time was much more free andy'' and continental europe and much less of america. >> host: dash slavery. >> guest: of course. he was an early opponent but burke was one of the first signatories of the petition. burke recognize different

societies exist from different circumstances than part of his argument is the particular genius is not a written constitution but a whole system that included an important class that had its merits. he was not a defender of the status quo per se not part of the notion that people could rise through the system of what we would think of a middle-class family that was irish. a.m. to read through the upper tiers it wanted other people to do the same but he did believe there was a stabilizing influence to make the british open to thinking about free society. he thought the french could have saved their system instead of assuming there is only bad and that the

americans were quite different. well they had the same rights of englishmen that what they were fighting for for, in america quality reaches a far more deeply class system. i think what burke offers is what the free society is that translates pretty well. much less so with europe the european democracy is very different and that idea of social democracy is quite different. i don't think burke is applicable to continental europe. people try to apply its that led to a certain thought that people thought they were following him by he would not have thought so. >> host: they told me

there would be no hegel. [laughter] >> it translates to america much more easily. what we americans take for granted in assume is that it was the beginning of something brand new with the extension of a certain kind of anglo-american way of life where it is quite different in developed differently and burke with his speeches with their much more threats but the basic idea of deviations of it is it the english stadia. that his position and that burke articulates does not translate simply but plays the part.

>> host: from the book book, correct me if i am wrong, as scientists today your dissertation was a slightly different title. i am not trying to imply but it is your fifth book? >> guest: forth. >> host: slacker. but it was in the dead of the past? >> the great love change with burke thomas paine and the meeting of past. >> host: so that looms very large and you touched on that a a little bit but can you talk a little bit? >> guest: that is where it ends as it goes through dramatic the interpretations

questioning the beating of the past because the disagreements about to a disagreement what the past should be. burke believes human beings be long and a context and this was inescapable so to a trustee in society it is a mistake this society users to those chosen obligations in this should be set up in a way to beat those to the family or the community or the nation. but we should not escape the past because the only reason why we don't live in savagery the inheritance the cultural and social is how we progress. use forward so key traditionalist bbb the

present is better than the past. some think the past was perfect to have access do perfect truth decadently be reached by the way our fathers did. and that the future can be better still of the freeze is a the means by which the president -- the president becomes better than the past. but of this steve believes fundamentally in the human being as a rational juicer id we should understand society as a choice that every generation rancher be as free as a can the industry as a first generation to determine our destiny to set our own goals to create our own civilization. that difference turns out to

be nervously important it is crucial to burke criticism of of liberal radicalism in crucial to his description of his conservative liberalism that is a gradual of the past thomas paid once people to be free and especially of the allegations that present themselves at the juncture of the generation. he wants us to live as if that is not the case. been beating of the past is the central. it is crucial between right a and laughed. what we think of is social issues but without choosing them is if we should work to make it to choose them.

sir betty is optional we don't know -- we know of will dash we don't owe anything to anyone. and we have to live with that to find their way to initiate a radical break. >> host: what did thomas paid think of the family? >> he was a little corey. he did not believe is an inherited anything. he was opposed to those privileges, power, property at the end of his career with the basic outline of the welfare state shows us how individualism leads tuesday december and it is important thing to see completely funded by inheritance tax because he

says nothing of use happens between that generation that you have somebody getting something that they did not earn. he doesn't make radical argument like plato that the parents and children should be separated because it is the only way to have a radical social change but what he says suggests as much that the links should be this soon to if not broken but the smart as radicals have always understood family is the foremost obstacle. through communism did in less pernicious ways the first things they did was take them out of the house because it is true is a relationship between parents

and children is the foundation of order and to change that fundamentally you have to break that spectacular three clinton said just like msnbc a couple months ago we have moved beyond the idea that it is somebody else's child. she said we need to move the idea away from private ownership of the children to collective ownership. but i bring that up because if you are clear that burke understands the family is essential it is a dictatorship. not in the context of their own families. is that considered to be not just? if they tell their children when to go to bet? >> guest: john block the

answers the question that liberalism is suspended through the age of maturity because liberalism where liberty requires recent is says thomas paid under state and said they are born with the and develop irrationality they've reached at as maturity. >> host: we can agree with that as parents. >> guest: certainly not at for years old. [laughter] so they have a right to treat their children as property to a point while they are young. but burke makes the explicit argument so the book of the french revolution makes the argument effectively that one generation is made and

criticism of burke he says the parliament down dustings of monarchy forever the he says no. there should not be anything that we do because the past generation says of. >> host: what about the constitution and then? >> guest: it is a great question. job is paid is critical of what is inside the constitution without explicitly criticizing the constitution. he battle the future but the checks ian balances to the bicameral legislature that democracy should be as simple as possible and it is not necessary to divide power to channel it is just a way to keep people from their rights. he was in france when it was debated but it seems that he is critical of the

constitution and we know very little of what states have adopted it was in line more with his with fet about government. is a letter that a friend sent him a copy that said the letters to this friend were the source of the best and correspondent so they're interesting arguments. the onetime he came to london he said let's talk about it when i see you so now we don't know. [laughter] for the way to seek is different than thomas paid but it does seem he is critical. >> host: this is one area of the temporary issue. this is where you see the left or right divided

generally speaking the left feels constrained by the constitution. as german predestinate is back in the white house that because of republicans in and of the congress they said u.s. political system sucks. so the party of government curtails government. but there are areas where but i will ask, why is there so little discussion house this stuff plays out? you set up fee argument for left verses write them by the end we are fairly and

interested to go very far to score these things with debate. >> guest: it is the book about thomas paid a and burke and what would they do chapter but in the end i decided that would take away from the discussion because if they speak for themselves and they're not shy and quite clear it helps liberals and conservatives too understated their own views better and where they differ from people who why describe as the origins of their own way of thinking it is more useful as a presentation one of the first instances of the left rectified to show how the light goes from here to there. it does not go in a straight way. of lot changed about

circumstances. especially a century debates about economics they were not a part of with socialism and capitalism that, i think it has changed some but what burke and paine do shows the different approaches toward definition between left you a bright and understandings of what liberal society is and what they look like in their original form. one of the reasons why paine is under the constitution in dues more clear but today's progressives have very little sense of their intellectual history and where there ideas come from. his metaphors about society

or all motion metaphors about moving progress and motion. burke are all space about creating a society. that is what government does and the purpose of politics in without a finding that spays he believes by sustaining it you allow for progress because it is not only made possible by that it is defined by the space. it is maintained by principals like sticking to keep proposition's but within that it is not about principles but what we want cover up what we can achieve and everyday politics is not a constant appeal to any other ideal with the hand to changing how we live to live in a different way. it is about improving what

we have to solve problems. so for that approach to government issues tremendously powerful because it defines the space to allow you to sustain the space and allows for a disagreement within the space. but if you want to motion then the restraints just feel they always hold you back to bruce much too slowly you do cannot transform a once and never get the majority to do what you want to and with paine it is that kind of system. >> host: you are right. one of the reasons why i are geared the left has changed is that dialectic a lot from woodrow wilson that the

president needs of vision and prior to wilson not just the night to watch man but and obligations to do this or that but not died the entire politics in that direction. >> guest: he said they need a vision of what the country is but not wet hair -- not where it is doing. but wed rigo reid burke stuff about reason which i and joy as the point is well made. [laughter] but there is a lot. i put it in the review, i enter stand this gets the biology but as founding

bothers there have been so many generations that the genetic material has gone all over so the family resemblance is the left and a the rights. when i read burke i get a strong whiff of political legal studies of the postmodern left that i was stuck with it and college to reject this and when i hear the other i get a strong smell of the libertarian. it seems like the most basic element is more the tea party than democrats. >> guest: it depends what you mean. it is true for a different kind of reason. there are a lot of libertarians who start with

paine libertarianism means many different things some forms have the highest form of belief of organic is the essence of burke and his view but some are very rational listed can believe that society by applying rules especially economic principles that are more or less scientific can maximize freedom and therefore maximize happiness. what paine shows us with the evolution of his own thinking is how radical individualism leads to the states the desire to liberate the individual from reliance on other people which is the essence of the goal. and leads to the creation of a faceless provider of

material benefits. he takes the steps in shows you why they are connected. there is a tendency to think of the welfare state like to say progressivism is the german imports but hours is not the bismarck welfare state is much more like paine. the purpose to enable the individual to have the illusion of independence to enable people to meet their material needs without the dependents of people around you. there is no real way around that and burke says it should be formed around that fact especially the family should be the core he says in order to break that we have to have the distant

faceless provider of material benefits. that is the american welfare state. it does not exist of humanitarianism a lot of the arguments now sound that way. it exists with the radical individualism. the of left is much more radical individualist they have a right to. but you find that with the libertarian as of -- libertarianism. they are in the no-man's land. they end up on the right because the greatest threat to the brodie is government access. so it makes sense but they are not conservatives as they would be the first to say. >> host: they used to be

much more grounded it whenever they tell me of libertarians split off but not where it was important which was economics so we share the save baseball cards for those thinkers. >> guest: and it is increasing a sense of society as this organic thing to grow an experiment. conservatives have different views with the limits but that basic view is not rational or plant as many are sharing. >> i will not argue that the most conservatives will find one in the past but for the modern day liberalism it is a college chiapas now.

now -- the college campus now were the food is provided, shelter, a security, they cleaned up but they think they are independent people. [laughter] we are running at a time. the current political climate on the right, the tone as we have reforms that he would side with burke for toe is very much at a taco. -- out of tempo. do you think the american conservative movement could move back to that