political consultants ryan and harlan argue that the failures that they created the current populist movement and wrapping up our look at the best-selling nonfiction books according to newsmax's bioethicist is equal in manual national healthcare systems in which country has the best healthcare. most of the authors have appeared on the tv and you can watch them online booktv.org. . . . >> is one of the broader question to open with. were living a moment of crisis. that is hard to deny . we have been through stream has is been dominated by public health crisis, that is still very much with us in rephrasing now also a social crisis pretty is as old as our country in some ways. the struggle for racial equality

and for human equality. but the notice was very much at this moment. enforces to confront challenges in our society that we've had trouble with in recent years. this is a time that makes us wonder how strong our institutions are going to prove to be. how we are going to rise to the challenge like this. i think you can't help but to see it as a time of crisis. because it is a time of testing is also time for us to think about what america's strengths are and what were good at is a country and how we can build on that to confront these enormous problems. see 500 we get there. >> our country has always tried to strike a balance between the dignity and equality of individuals in one hand and some form of strength of community on the other. every free society faces that in our society think is in the past

half-century really emphasize the individual. yuval: emphasize liberty and freedom. and also diversity. that is brought some enormous advances and benefits. but there is another side to the coin. and it can look like isolation. you look like alienation and loneliness. i think we have seen all of that in this 21st century. this has been an era that is been marked by some crisis. from 911 at the beginning of it to the financial crisis to now, a pandemic. and it has forced us to look to the sources of our strength. invoice that drive us on one hand to think about her history and on the other she pushes to look at the future which are politics is not always very good at doing. so somebody like me was trying to look at the intersection of political theory and public policy, theory and practice around politics. this is really time to think about fundamentals and look for

ways to draw strength from what is been good about our country to address the problems that is long had and still very much lives with. peter: in your book, you talk about the norm. how we ran an arm and what you consider to be the norm in this country. yuval: is a very important question. we look at them this perception of the norm, were looking at a moment that culturally very dominated by the baby boomers. in the generation of people who were in between, about 9046 in the early 1960s. these are still today though, often in their 70s and 60s. people are running our core institutions and in charge of our politics. and with president donald trump, was born 74 years ago this month, june 1946 pretty george w. bush was born in july of 1946 and bill clinton in august of 1946 pretty rock obama was born

in 1961. they are all boomers. the life experience that they have had to come is actually been pretty unusual version of america. in a market that came out of the second world war very unified and having achieved something great by coming together and mobilization. the country was in norma's confidence is institution. in his government and big business and big labor and working together to solve problems. and over the course of the 50 or 60 years since that kind of height, we have lived through fragmentation and diversification and i think a lot of that is been good critically people who have been on the margins sprinted and people who are alienated from that mainstream consensus. but it also meant that we have lost solidarity. the so defined postwar america. now her politics are defined by the sense of loss. and defined by sense that the era of the baby boomers

childhood was the norm and we have fallen from that. that era was not the norm. the dilettante america, any point in the 19th century, you would find a divided society with very little confidence in institutions pretty dealing with some economic and cultural forces that are very much like we are saying now. mass immigration, industrial issues, urbanization, our country has a lot of resources to draw on and thinking about how to deal with a moment like this. it is important not to misperceive the norm. 1950s, early 60s, america was very an unusual form of our society. we shouldn't simply take this is norm pretty we are sort of stuck in a place, regurgitating and reentry with boomers and they were young. peter: should be the idea. yuval: i don't think so. it's not about one moment in history. it should be at about core principles. how we treat each other.

i think our ideals are written in the declaration of independence. the core fundamental beliefs that we are all created equal, that our government comes from that premise that as a result we have some freedom as individuals but we also are a strong united society. those core principles along with the ideals laid out as forms of government, institutional design in our constitution can provide us and we do through date very kind of time and challenge. i think those kinds of ideals are what we should look to in a moment like this. our politics can't be organized around returning to some golden age. thanks for small, was on his wilderness people think it was. for many americans, it was a very hard from that. in any case, three does not go backwards question should be at a become strong future. jimmy the conservative, means reaching to our principles and sing how we can apply in the ideals to changing

circumstances. this matter politics should be striving to do. that means coming to terms with those circumstances. understanding a country as it is in being at home in the 21st century america. and thinking, how can we be our best self in this time. but how we can return to some bygone golden age. i think the left and the right both, engage in nostalgia for midcentury american the consent the way of constructive politics. peter: going t read a little bit from your book, life in america is always getting better and worse at the same time. the resin conservatives both frequently, not only that the path to the mark of the dreams, but easy to see but also that our country was once on that very path is been thrown off course by the foolishness or wickedness of those on the side of the aisle. in the broader public meanwhile, fines and resulting political debates, little evidence of engagement with contemporary

problems and few attractive solutions. yuval: that is the description of my frustration with the basic dynamics of the contemporary politics free to think you do see it in both parties. there is a way in which republican party often yearns for a social arrangement and cultural arrangement of the 1950s and early 60s and the democrats year for the economic arrangement of that time. but the fact is that america change from that. first of good reasons pretty with her. a liberalizations that opportunities for people who have been the emergence of our society and also the created options and choices and economic dynamism in place which we benefited from enormously they also did come at a cost of the event how we address that, you cannot just think about how we go back to normal or social order. it is not even what conservatives are to do pretty the question is how we apply our enduring ideals couldn't

situation. i think we have spent too much of her time thinking about whose fault is that we fell from height rather than thinking about elite prepare for the future. our politics today has remarkably little to say about the future of talk much about what america is going to need and 2040. that sounds impossibly far away. the 20 years from now is as close to us is that your 2000. tennis exactly exactly what we should be thinking about her politics. thinkers need to get ourselves out of the rut of nostalgia for midcentury american think as left and right in markets in general. but we want for the future and will be no need to be filled and to get there. peter: you involve himself as a conservative. yuval: love my work has been about that question. what does that mean. what the left right divide in american politics and free

society is really about. to me it begins from base basic premises. almost from an anthropology side. human beings are born less than perfect. ralph: fallen her twisted her lofgren and formed we can be free in evolution is done by the court institutions where families in religion and community and education and ultimately politics and culture. most institutions are capable to be valued and treasured and preserved. what we need to be a free society. because again from the premise that that is very difficult to do, information is difficult. want to preserve these institutions that are capable of it. i think people who describe themselves as progressives from

the premise that we are actually born free. a lot of people rent free not living up to potential because they are being oppressed by institutions that impose on them an impressive status quo. there is some truth to both of these views. what you choose to emphasize runs very deep in your character and your sense of what politics is about. i think free society disney developed but it seems to be to ultimately the conservative view offers what we need most is what the sense of social order also enables justice. so i am a conservative. peter: our institutions to meet other in an ongoing way. their flourishing company into institutions make us more responsible. but when they're degraded, they failed to form us or the d form is to be cynical, self-indulgent or reckless. reinforcing exactly the things

that undermine free society. yuval: that book is really the nature of this social crisis. the fractured provoked republic, is more in broad terms about the history that is let us to the polarization that we are living within our society. in this new book, time to build think about the underpinnings of the social crisis devices that we know in connect each other and understand each other and was ourselves a part of all. isolation, in the private lives of many people. it can lead people to up we always an enormous increase in suicide rate of recent years. i argument that is partly due to the weakening number institutions.

the purpose of the institution is not to harm them, possible them, but to serve as a platform for them. they can stand on or elevate themselves. i think there's been this sort of deal d formation. from the media, academy, club people now think of the institutions they are part of as existing as platforms for themselves rather than as molds of our character not behavior. in some recovery of what they mean to be a part of an institution to be shaped by an institution. it's very important to her life. see that very powerfully to politics which has become so formative now where people run from congress basically to get a bigger social media following. [silence].

[silence]. yuval: we have come to a place where we think of a political institution as platforms for cultural performances. it is, people run for congress to get a blue checkmark next to the name on twitter.

more than to enact legislation pretty they are trying to do good. the term to include society with deceit the world all six complaints fundamentally platform rule. way to themselves in place where they can channel the outrage of the voters who got them there. they can perform really can stand as outsiders in common about congressmen than as insiders connect within congress. obviously this been happening in the presidency as well. i think president trump exilic isaac more than any president we've had to says that the presidencies the stage. it is a place to perform . the presidencies himself as an outsider. he spends a lot of time talking about the government. and complaining on twitter about things that the department of justice does rather than understanding of self as the ultimate insider nurses and with responsibility as defined by the role he plays. this ultimately argues that to recover something in the institutionalism, we have to each ask ourselves the question we know dennis anymore in

politics. given my rule here how should i behave. it goes well beyond politics. as number of congress or employee, as a pastor or congregant or neighbor, even that, how should i behave here. this may related our institutional role formative the way we behave in society in ways that might drive us to a greater sense of obligation and responsibility to one another rather than just thinking of ourselves as standing alone on a platform and acting out this kind of cultural rage. the logic is overtaken lumber for institutions and be ready back against such. peter: so technology is literal. yuval: ultimately assumes the role we wanted to bring the forces here run deeper than technology. not at the whim of the social media or internet. use them because that's what were looking for.

i think the larger social trusses that we've been living through has been a function of time with liberalization, diversification greatest indian market for parking out before the middle of the 20th century, many of the social forces were telling people be more like everyone else. there were forces of conformity. philbrick constricting too many people. and in our times, telling everybody to be themselves. there's a lot of good to that but also care society part. i think we need to find balance. in push against those places where we lean too hard. peter: the great debates, auto start playing a quote from a book. the political lofgren often seem to represent genuinely distinct point of view. our national life almost by design, to bring to the servic ,

to divide them. yuval: it is a work of intellectual history and began is my dissertation at the university of chicago. never appeared of years, developed into a general book. look at the origins but in different ways have been the subject of my work. more broadly of the left and right to divide pretty and looking through the lens of the late 18th century debate between edmund burke and thomas paine. edmund burke, the great irish born english politician sought to be one of the fathers of modern conservatism. thomas paine and was born american revolutionary war figure became very important figure making the case for the french revolution to the english speaking world. they engage with each other.

they had an argument as they are natural of social change. in overtime it would become between the left and right are politics. anthropology, just how it is that the human being enters into the world. what we acquire to in order to flourish and be free. in both of these views, their liberal party they belong in a free society. the both believe in democracy, individual liberty. i believe in protecting the equal rights of all. but they differ fundamentally about what the free society is. because of the different about the nature of the human person. the debate about how events good. it is still the right way to know the differences between the left and right there not factions in the each spaces on god. their parties in the sense that they are divided by difference

of opinion by what would be good for everybody. society is large. it can invariably very divisive in a country. it is necessary, the way of framing in formulating the debate that we have the countries good. the differences between left and right revenue at the 18th century. still relevant. peter: mature background that you came to this point of view. yuval: homonym) born in israel . my family came to the u.s. when i was eight years old. i grew up here. mostly in new jersey. i went to college and the american university in washington dc. it went to graduate school at the university of chicago. anna came back to work the bush administration.

department of health and human services and then in the bush white house. then i went into the world more my work is really been at the intersection on my academic work was about which is political theory and philosophy and what my work in public policy is been about which is political practice. so i'm now a scholar at the american enterprise institute pretty and i started in 2009, and in some ways i try to connect theories and practices of politics to shed light on the other. as to how i came to my conservative views. this kind of a mystery. so what it has to do with influences around me growing up i'm sure. my father is a conservative but ultimately, it reaches to some mysterious level that would never fully understand about ourselves. they can about we just come to have fundamental is that we have is often a little bit

mysterious. i am impressed by institutions that enable people to thrive. it means i am very impressed by the american social order, the american constitutional system and i think we can draw a lot of our history. peter: or the non- negotiables in our social compact. yuval: i think those are stated in the declaration of independence. we believe in human equality and dignity. that's why people are the street now because we all saw on video a gross violation and abuse of the human person want to be treated as an equal was not. that is i think a nonnegotiable fact about americans. but our political inclination, we can differ a lot. we all believe that we are all created equal. we are all basic rights of the government should protect those rights. i think i'm thereon to relieve a

lot of debate. how should government protect those rights. questioner institutions look like and what would be most effective. with the basic ideals arisen in the charter of our society, the non- negotiables in american politics. i think they're true. peter: will good afternoon and welcome to book tv on "c-span2". this is our monthly "in depth" program. we've missed you last couple of months and we are glad to be alive again with author and scholar. he is the author of five books getting with tyranny and reason which came out in 2100 imagining the future, 2008. the great debate which we have discussed document in 13. the fractured republic, renewing america's social contract and the age of individualism, came out in 2017 and finally as this book at the time to build. from family and community, congress and the campus, help recommitting to our institutions can revise the american dream.

we want you to participate in our conversation this afternoon. we'll begin with the phone numbers. (202)748-8200. this view them in the east and central time zones in violent if you have a question or comment for the doctor. (202)748-8201 pretty you can also text any question or comment. please include your first name and the city and state that you live in. so we can get that context. (202)748-8903. we also have all of our social media sites, instagram's facebook twitter, at book tv is or handle and begin taking those calls in just a few minutes. doctor, back to the great debate. what is been the lasting effect of the french revolution in france and in this country.

yuval: is really one of those core ethical moments in history of the west. and it's absolutely been enormous. it unleashed the modern ways of good and bad. the shape of moderate radicalism. in many ways still with us. it's not where it was born. liberal society, liberal is in our way of life. it would be began in the united kingdom well before the french revolution. napa before and after. think of the american revolution as the great turning point in human history. the great birth of truly free society.

in the dreams of liberalism. after the french revolution, the politics of every subsequent free society, the politics of our society, has been divided or a core question about social change. how do we change pretty to be changed by building on the paths or breaking with path. the basic question in a lot of ways, is a distinction between left and right when you come down to it. it became the defining organizing question of the politics not only france, but britain and the united states and democracy europe afterwards. essentially every free society today. and so before the french revolution from a look at english politics ec parties divided basically the question whether it is the crown on the parliament that should have power. that was changing by the nobody by the end of the 18th century for that to the french revolution on the question that's divided the red left right was essentially the question of the french

revolution. and the question whether the purpose is an ongoing constant revolutionary process that ultimately would liberate us entirely from the burdens of the past, for the purpose of our politics is a process of gradual change to address problems that keeps us connected it to the roots of western civilization. and enables us. it the former view is a progressive in the latter is a conservative view. in the french revolution is norman's amount of why that is the nature of the debates we have. so it was a hugely consequential event. many ways continues to be. peter: and fits with your descriptions of edmund burke and thomas paine. burke as a patient, and thomas paine is in a printer. yuval: 's fundamental disposition was gradual reform and it's not revolution.

this is we need to change gradually so we don't lose but we have built up what works. and we can change. pain had much less patience for that gradual change pretty since dance was unjust and we need to overturn it and start over. we know the principles than on a guide to a free politics frivolous throughout only got 15 from an age of oppression and start over in the right way. it was much more radical revolutionary. i'm of the visa really contained within the american revolution. the american revolution was both a conservative and a radical revolution. it is seen the declaration of independence which begins by stating very radical principal, to principal. but then goes on to state prudence demands that you do don't just overthrow governments for shallow reasons . and goes on to list the reasons why the americans want to revolt and those reasons american conservative. they say and denied their rights

as englishmen. denied reports to the institutions that have long been theirs. the american revolution pretty active french, purely radical. the american revolution was conservative and progressive projects are contained within it the entire framework of the politics become powers. peter: go ahead and call (202)748-8201 pretty for their abuse and the mountain and pacific time zones, and your first call comes from elisabeth in new jersey. guest: how are you. on ask, how does he explain the disconnect of conservatives. and how to go along with the moral and self-serving and self-absorbed dictator but the president pretty and the

differences between the senate and congress pretty things are not adding up. i'm just wondering what he would say about that. yuval: thank you for a question. i'm conservative he was critical of donald trump. i don't think he is fit for the presidency he was my choice. and i don't think he has done well by our country. that said, i think the fact that our politics is polarized as it is, the important part of the reason why so many republicans are politics have stood by trump even though he said things that they themselves may be disapprove of for the very least that they should be disapprove of. i don't think he is a conservative. and i don't think he's advance rule view the conservatives should see want to advance in a politics. but we have reached a point where each party too often defines in the party is country's biggest problem. other than the deeper the real challenges we have. i think about one another as the core problem to be dealt with.

and that kind of intense partisanship means that ultimately you prefer your party over everything else. i think republicans have found ways to rationalize and justify too much was the president has done. two unwilling to criticize him. i wouldn't criticize everything he's done pretty things imported good judges. i think that when it comes to regulatory reform and other things always done well. but generally speaking, and especially to the question of character which i think is absolutely essential in executive leadership. our president should be people of character. i'm an enormously critical of him anymore republicans ought to be. peter: your former boss was in the new york times, maybe supporting joe biden. yuval: i think it is unclear. he hasn't said who is supporting exactly. whatever you might think of the policies, and it generally like them. as a man of character. i got to see him in action when

over to the white house i would say is strictly most of the time is that he lives always with the weight of responsibility of the presidency of the shoulders. he knew that his decisions mattered the logic depended on them that they had to be taken seriously in the bearded to the country to approaches job with the gravity that it requires. but is clearly lacking in this president. as just no way around that. peter: politics is a negotiation of these possible differences in response to particular needs and events. probably party politics should not look down upon as unseemly. thomas burke argues. on the country, is the means by which well-intentioned politicians join together is honorable and patriots pretty. yuval: very interesting because it's one of the first people makes a positive case for parties. there's always been a pragmatic

case for parties. the necessary to organize politics . but very few people actually made an explicit almost philosophical case for the need for parties in a free society. burke is one. actually thomas jefferson is another. they would've found themselves in different parties the two of them. but market saw that ultimately will parties enable us to do is to form broad coalitions. many parties now is fundamentally divisive and is bringing it down into action. in effect parties, broadly understood, they have a strong reform broad loss narrow coalition. he think about his democratic party, he veteran candidates in alabama and in oregon. you can build a pretty broad interview with the republican party, you've got to find ways to appeal to the people in the broader terms and in different circumstances and situations. it is a healthy force in our politics. and forces compromised and cooperations. an ultimates mentally the institutions that we require in

a society, that force us to compel us to accommodate each other. for the congress is the essential core institution of our constitutional system because the congress can to help but the combination always been be fundamental differences in the politics. people will disagree with each other. it's never going away. the question is how we handle that having of that. in answering a free society's compromise. force you into the tent that require you to compromise in order to achieve anything. i do think and focus right, the parties belong on the list of those institutions. peter: calling in from maryland pretty good headline. guest: i'm not sure of my question by what has been said by the first call. the first caller said dictator. his all of the people testify, they were right about politics,

absolutely right. they do not have the right to say to the presidents, something about he was white. that is stupidity. i just read a book, and talking about the guy who organized, ma. but martin luther king, the said about him. [inaudible]. he said a lot, gonna happen. then watch him. [inaudible]. trump coming to my house. one more pretty.

[inaudible]. is the best lawyer in the united states. gold or silver. trump is not following the constitution. he's not following anything. that is fine with me. peter: a little bit about political character. yuval: donald trump is on a dictator. he is elected president of the united states. have a lot of problems with some things. i think that he just have the character it takes to be our president when he our president pretty and was elected. he has not violated the constitution is not any obvious way that i can say. there are debates about some of the things that he has none of those debates can be had inc. they belong. i for all of the objections that i do have, i think the arguments that you sometimes hear that he's an authoritarian are a

dictator. those are not well-founded. if anything, is an unusually weak president. he is not used the powers they might have in the ways that we have. so i raced before some objections. i got many more. but i don't think he is a dictator rightly any means. fortunately just thrown around. peter: minnesota color pretty suburb of minneapolis. guest: good morning freddie with all said i've never read any of these books by mr. levine. my question is in reference to inequality a lot of the protesters are using history to advance to maybe one side. in the past five or ten years

since trump is been elected. as a great society done lesson in justice and not making us right when we did this in the late 60s. how we water down expectations with a shortchanging in order to compete. yuvalpeter: what is the last coe of weeks been like for you. i do 20 miles from downtown minneapolis brightest. guest: on will highway they outsource minneapolis. i'm originally from wisconsin.

went to community college. i barely got through high school. minnesota give me a chance. a florist in school later in life pretty much waited ten years later and have contributed to a community and have grown with it. this been a real disappointing time to see this fall in front of me. i'm in my mid- 50s. i talked to a late start. but i haven't spring in my step and i care about the future and a volunteer in all the communities. they work with addiction community specifically that of suffered from a covid-19 crisis. this been a very challenging time.

peter: the recent headline in the new york times, one of america's most liberal cities, struggles with racism. guest: is in a product of these policies do not worked. i'm not saying that one is better but are there other options that we not export the character issue that mr. levine has far left in reference to possible selfishness of groupthink thanks. an individual thought processes. it is about me now in my market collectively. peter: thank you. this bring mr. levine into this. yuval: thank you for that. all that you do. it's really people like you make this country great.

and ultimately is that kind of engagement and concern and involvement in local community that can strengthen our society. think first evolved on the question of the great society, on the one hand, a set of large public programs that were intended to create a new kind of social safety net in our society. some have been effective in some muscle. being an enormous price for them financially and physically now. forcing us to rethink how they are structured like medicare and medicaid. in that sense, we have been left with a tremendous bill to pay. as we thought through and supported in the future. even as these programs of the deal of good. great society was also a great mission. disconnected into the civil rights revolution in someplace. and is succeeded the great

society. in 1967 and 64 and 55, really became before the great society. i think that those bills have been largely successful. even as we live through moment where we see how much remains to do, and some) and really on the question of basic human equality on society and struggling against racism. we should still see the real progress has been made over the years. but the kinds of problems that we do without are not on the same scale and character as the problems in the civil rights movement intended within the midcentury market alone what we saw in prior decades and centuries in our society. a lot of work remains to be done. but we live in a time when that murderous police officer who killed george floyd on streets minneapolis. he will be tried for murder. there was a time in our society when the law was behind that cop. in our society simply would not have valued lives of black

americans noise in our laws do. so it also looks people will progress really has been made. i wouldn't suggest a failure. but ultimately before messaging to be made to moral progress. it is like the same thing as social progress. moral progress has been made new. and ever treat human heart. this was the is like on conservative pretty think that ultimately the problems that we have a rigid in the human heart. they are rooted in any imperfection of the universe and that means we need to be formed and educated, shaped and to be moral people. we require engagements with those moral ideals that can give us the respect for each other and acknowledge each other's court dignity. that work has to be done in every generation. that will and pretty efficiently ways we can change social institutions and social structures make that work pays here. and to treat people equally under the law. if i think a lot of progress on that front.

there will always be a need for us to put before the rising, the core principles, the four ideals of western civilization and american society. that simply will never end. there's no way around it. the fundamental were performing people is a work of every generation on behalf of the one that follows them. peter: what your take on minneapolis. very progressive city high morals. this is the night not the first high-profile incident in the city. yuval: there's no no question that having liberal politics is not a solution to basic social and moral problems. these arise everywhere. in some ways i think there is a way in which the power of the police unions another structural institution factors make it very difficult for the police department in a place like

minneapolis to enforce its own rules and make sure the officers to the public with respect and dignity so that when these problems arise, they can be more difficult to deal with. i think we should be written ready to deal with people everywhere. sauna issue of politics and a simple sense. these things happen. not just except that they will always happen. we should do with them. we should make sure that we are engaged with one another as citizens. inequality of every person regardless of race or that in anything. i don't think politics is a set of that. she by the time to from family and community, the commerce in the campus are recommitting to revive the american dream.

stuart hud in seattle. guest: the morning to both of you. i would like to know how i as a non- trump supporter, but definitely for the said work that on the side of pain although when i was younger, i was on the side of pain. but today's normal person i appreciate work a lot more. but i talked to people who seem to be resistant to convoys. absolutely opposed to a common cause unless you're totally on the team. that is the partisanship and seems to have gotten a way out of hand. yuval: i very much agree with you about this pretty think in both parties, the unwillingness to compromise is now the core problem in our political like bridges on the fact that there's left and right, but the fact that there's actions within the left and right. we made like enough like. as the fact that there not

willing to see each other as conversation partners and his partners in compromise. i think what polarization is really meant the politics of the 21st century is loss of the sense that ultimately compromise is the only way the politics will function. his havoc for a variety of reasons pretty think one of those reasons is actually likely have probably had the majority and minority party in politics in some time. look at american political history and political science is often used these terms, is nonparty newman party. most times in our politics, there is strong party, might be the democrats and republicans and that strong party rains part-time and it functions as a minority party. it forces compromise and uses his leverage at the margins where can. and then things change.

and as a political realignment the majority. they go through. like that. we have now lived since about the middle of the 1990s and. more power shifts back and forth. we do not have a party where we can say is the majority party of the country with a minority. one of the things that means, is that each party over things that i can win the next election a candidate for new president that we had is come into office since 1992, is coming with control of both houses of congress. in his own party controlling both houses of congress. that means the parties are shifting back and forth in each party's right to imagine that if you just wait this out, and if in the next election, can control everything and push things in its own direction. of course when this happens, the majority are never very big or strong and you actually don't get very much done. unless you're willing to compromise. so the major legislation that we have seen in this century, is quite partisan therefore not to

adore have a lot of trouble being sustained as we see our change. i think that is taken away some of the incentive that civility really means just acknowledging that the people you disagree with are still going to be there tomorrow. the political dynamics are now set such that you might imagine that they will be. and next election, we will limit whoever we might be. helping people to see that ultimately political progress only happens in whatever direction you are about five compromise with people you disagree with. the way to abuse these conversations. as a practical matter, simple and tried sometimes that just means working at the local level and state level we still do have real compromise happening. eleven the state of maryland where we have quite a conservative republican governor. pretty progressive democratic legislature. they were together because they have to. because of the practical level, there is no other way.

i think a kind recognition is more the surface at the state level than at the local level. that means that we should be telling more power to the state level and the local level where problems can still get result in a constructive way. listen to our national politics recaptures. peter: can't get through the phone lines, you can send us a message via text or social media, that hypertext number dial carefully please (202)748-8903, include your first name and city if you would. in n st. petersburg, florida texted in, what can an individual do to make politics better. yuval: thank you for the question. it's really a deep question of course brightest and very much the question and try to pick up in the legs but that we talked about. a time to build. the u.s. to begin where we are. thus began in the institutions that we each are part of.

this might be community institutions, religious or educational was buried there might be political institutions in our own communities they might be national politics react to ask ourselves how we could work together with others to advance a common goal. lincoln given my role here, given the institutional responsibility that i have how can i do better. in a small question is the path towards a larger reform . the book does lay out large reforms. i think are necessary reforms of chris, and the party system is a necessary reforms in the academy and the professional world. it talks about the media and talks about the civic life. but before any of those reforms in heaven, people within our institutions have to recognize that they are and we are part of the problem. and that means is that we first of all have to see that all of us are subject to this, to think of her institutional responsibilities is optional and think of her institutions and platforms for ourselves.

taking ourselves beyond that, helping ourselves the force for good. and it is the beginning of change is not an alternative or substitute but is an essential prerequisite. peter: that you tackle in a time to build is the education system of higher and higher lower brain and, thus our facebook page, this comment. educational institutions are failing to educate our children are prosperous future and worse. dividing the country as progressives have shaped curriculum. and it literally teaches our children we are a country dominated by do justice, these include the kids who are on the streets now. yuval: i think this raises an very important point. in one hand, it is crucial to see that our education system in america, especially with primary and secondary schooling is enormously decentralized.

it is a system where control of our curriculum is generally held that the local levels. what are the places candid different things. i think that is okay. that is the way to live with diversity and make the most of it. they're just places where, i don't like much but there are places where maybe i like event of the people don't. that will just happen in america. but i do think the point that you get to about how to team teach art history and very concerned the version of her history but denies us recourse to the investment history, is now being pushed a lot of children and college students. any history of american life would have to take very seriously and teach fully the history of racial oppression in our society. it's as old as the history of our society essential to understanding it. but it would also have to take seriously the history of the struggle against racial aggression which is all slowly in our society which offers us a lot to work with.

and trying to do better as a country. it's not the case that the american story is something story of failure. and to deny students access to the model and examples of ephedra get douglas or abraham lincoln, or harry templeman or martin luther king, is a tremendous failure of responsibility. we have to teach good with the bad. we have to offer a full picture and it offers the rising generation huge amount to work with in making our country better from the core ideals and principles of equality that have always been the ideas of our society no not always the tutus them. it in a people who have devoted their lives to that struggle in ways that we can learn from and be inspired by. at the covers like some of the projects, would deny that centers only and are. and we should not abide. peter: time to build, campus cultures chapter, harvard and

yale, reckons first two universities were created as conservatories work puritan orthodoxies and train men of religion to move to larger communities to repent of his sins and seek redemption. this moral aim is higher education, now largely charmed torn of its religious roots often looks like classroom instruction and campus political echoes of the demands a larger society, a kind of mass repentance for some brave collective sense. yuval: yelp the chapter really try to make some sense of what is been going on on american college campuses in the last few years. a little bit of perspective about the next character of higher education. that makes characters always been part of it. we demand a lot of things in our universities. expect them to get people skills they need for the american

economy. we expect them to give students access to the deepest truths and highest and most beautiful things in their civilizations and also expect them to be engaged in active. a lot of things than the poison part of the higher education. ninety the captain and campus activism began in the 60s is actually untrue. campus activism is actually was the original purpose of the university. harvard and you were created to advance moral chains and market society. in the nature of the moral change that is now being advanced under these campuses that's different. the character, purpose of higher education in both the kind of social activism is not new. always been a very tense balance between these different names between the giving students skills economic/access to a

higher truth. the kind of liberal education. in the interchanging societies. think the american, have fallen out of that balance where now, it ain't too heavily in the direction of activism. it's often not really about learning and teaching. so is not fundamentally academic. using displays of liberalism on american college campuses. there enormously troubling. in closing off of knowledge and teaching worse truth rather than building up in the village. i think the answer to that is to pretend that we can have higher education that is completely devoid of political activism played has nothing to do with the larger society. we should know what that respect as. but i think the university has to answer fundamentally to the academic ideal which everything it does, should be done in the form of teaching and learning. and that is where some schools have been disconnected from the purposes in recent years.

i think the culture of liberal education, that sees teaching and learning as fundamentals, the human flourishing has enormous role to play in bringing the culture of our campuses back into balance. in providing rising generation of students, the kind of enormous advantage of higher education can do. peter: and a another contemporary headline, after she has stopped this commencement speaker, after the students protest. yuval: campus culture is what i'm talking about. the idea they shouldn't hear and they the professors don't agree with. the campus is no place for opinions other than the kind of accepted name main progressive use of our society. a lot of time though is it were it form of rebellion against the establishment. but it is the establishment. cultural progressivism now, is

enormously important that college students here these views, a variety of views pretty and it is not just intellectual diversity for the purpose of diversity. i don't think they should hear everybody. i think there is a difference between hearing from people who play some significant role in our society and just hearing from people who are there to stir up trouble. but campus culture has been broadly students to be used to keep out conservative voices and libertarian voices and others academic voices. people who have ideas to offer but come from a different place politically than the mainstream of professors and students. it's been an an enormous problem on the market campus. material of the academic epics. peter: caught in oregon. guest: i'm in oregon.

central oregon. guest: i don't have a question. i have a statement. i worry about our self as a country. i worry about how we view ourselves as american citizens. you think all of the time for being american. no need to be thanked to be darkened. i volunteered during the draft. ... ... >> changing the paradigm.

and somebody doesn't represent me not one politician that i know in the united states or any state represents me. nobody in the state of oregon represents me. they represent themselves. >> there is a level of frustration that is understandable but there really is no way around represented politics in a democracy in society how to proceed and govern ourselves and what kind of laws we should respond to changing circumstances and we have to ask ourselves how do we resolve these decisions we

have a system for legitimizing that kind of decision-making. coming as close as we reasonably can to allow people of different views to be heard and allowing the views of the majority to be advanced in a way that doesn't trample the rights of the minority. there are enormous problems but that's the purpose of the system and very often that is what it achieves. it is unsatisfying. one of the things to me is i don't expect the world to be satisfying. there will be a contradiction and problem that don't go away we cannot fully resolve we can mitigate and try to address them. but this is not a perfect world. how to live with its imperfections and address the problems it confronts in ways that are legitimate and respect each other is the core

of design and parties are an important part to find ways to represent different views and to protect voices our institutions of government at the state and federal and local level are part of that. the fact we are dissatisfied at the end of it, that's life. but we are much less dissatisfied if we don't take it as seriously and don't make an effort to represent us. surely there are ways we can do better. i am open but there's a lot of ways we could do worse i think we should be grateful for our system of government for achieving what it has allowed us to achieve. >> ivory from richmond virginia. >>caller: i'm a long time c-span consumer i spent a lot of time watching. a while ago he said the

scaling character of discrimination changing the country. that's not true the scale that is changed. he made a reference to the george floyd murder and the reaction. what you don't understand is the reaction to george floyd's murder is not just the video because we have been watching video of police abuse from rodney king going forward. what we saw this time was white supremacy at its worst. you had a white police officer murder and unarmed disabled black man casually while looking into the camera i. so that's why you see what you

see on the streets today. we have institutional racism going on every day and the worst part the murders aside in the workplace people don't see every day. one of the problems in that regard is eeoc i will leave that on the side. in the current republican party and democrats. we are looking at the evolution this was laid by people like pat buchanan and newt gingrich. but it came to a head during the obama administration during the meeting do not i'm talking abou about. >> go ahead and finish your

thought so he can respond. >>caller: the meeting where around the time president obama first inauguration where plan was put together for republicans to not cooperate at all. and that led to the tea party and now we have donald trump republicans you are the ultimate manifestation. >>cspan2: okay we will leave it there. thank you for your thoughts. >> i appreciate those concerns and i agree entirely with the first part of what he said and we did see precisely white supremacy and it is utterly unacceptable both in character and scope and that's why people are on the streets and why it is perfectly clear we have a lot of work to do as a country on this front. and central i entirely agree.

as far as characterizing our polarization as a function of just one party, that strikes me as a symptom of polarization more than a diagnosis. it simply unquestionable that both parties have moved towards over the last two or three decades driven by various kinds of changes of campaign finance reform and cultural change by social media. people live more in echo chambers there is simply less cooperation across party lines no doubt republicans were part of that no doubt democrats in the bush and trump era have been part of that. we can certainly point to different people who play different roles in the process. but i think we can agree the process is a huge problem in our country and the recovery that is oriented to cooperation and compromise not

under a dream that we would agree but by accepting that reality and therefore we have to make bargains and deals and that is a politics is about to give each parties some of what it once in return given the other party some of what it once is essential. that's the way are politics works. but there are some issues that are nonnegotiable in the basic human equality respect for the human person regardless of race is not negotiable. it's not a partisan issue or an issue we can ultimately allow to be put to the side so politics can take up other things at the fundamental question of human rights and dignity and essential to who we must be as a people in america. it needs to be front and center. >>cspan2: what about the comment there is systemic institutionalized racism? >> there is. we have to see racism is both

a function and the individuals and the arrangements that we have established to structure politics. i do think we have made real progress to fight some of the institutional racism there is less than it was. but that doesn't mean we can stop the effort for the work can be put down. one of the things we see these things were happening when there were friends - - phones around the didn't just start on the contrary this is a deep an enormous problem that needs to be taken up as a fundamental challenge in american life. no question that's one of the ways our country has a lot of work before we can reach the ideals we aspire to. we do want to reach that there

is a very large aspiration. but that is not enough. >> agree that our system requires compromise how did we ever get to the point where compromise is unacceptable? this attitude seems to be more common on the right. >> we got and that to that point in part with the culture and political revolution in which politics especially at the national level is fraught around a set of formal symbolic issues each party treats the other as the country's biggest problem if that's the case then you really can't compromise the only solution is to get rid of the other party but you won't get rid of the other party and our country has practical problems that stand in the way whether inequality and racial

reconciliation or prosperity and the opportunity is available to the rising generation but in the way of life those have to be taken through public policy that can only be achieved by a process of accommodation and compromise. our political culture has been transformed in a way that understates and undermines the potential of compromise and accommodation happening largely at the national level. to say this has been caused by one party is a symptom of the problem, not a diagnosis. it's not true it's by both parties. that an enormous amount of contempt for the right on the left and that is equally destructive and makes it very difficult for people to take seriously the reality to make progress by working together an enormous amount of contempt on the left for the right that

has to be addressed in the same way. the people will still be here tomorrow. think of politics as a way to reach those accommodations is neighbors and fellow citizens. they are not your enemies. >>host: book tv on c-span2. this is our monthly in-depth program. this month author and scholar yuval levin his three most recent books, the great debate. the fractured republic and the time to build is the most recent from family and community how we committing to institutions can revive the american dream.

charlie from roslyn heights new york. >>caller: hello. i agree with what he said was in the human heart we don't value character in our society anymore. i know if we ever did but i tell young people the most important thing in life is to be a good decent person that's the first thing you should be an that's not valued but everything we have a problem in our society he did not mention that we have a concentration of wealth and communication with that wealth you have the corporate media. i think that controls the debate. we need to talk to one another and we need good civil debate.

i hear that. i would love to hear a debate between two americans with opposing views. we need to get them out and debate and talk to one another and that's not happening. that concentration of wealth and the concentration of the media has something to do with that. >>host: my guess is most of us think that would be a good idea to hear two points of view with a reasonable argument et cetera. >> i think that's right. there all kinds of reasons with our media culture where that doesn't happen very much and why when we do have debates people are reading talking points and 12 people are lined up on a cable news panel each saying a few words.

that has to be an assessment of the public's attention span. i c-span those people are willing to listen and follow what's happening in our public life to be seriously engaged in a deep way. there are some deeper cultural incentives the question of concentration is complicated in the century america, there was a much more concentrated media architecture with three television networks two or three national newspapers that had enormous cultural power to shape a mainstream consensus. things were much more concentrated than they are now. we have a fragmentation of the media because of the internet

and other pressures were there are many more voices out there. it's often difficult to tell who to trust and if they are following any standards to take seriously but certainly greater diversity of voices. there is a greater not lesser concentration in the media world it's very heavily centered around those corporate donors of media companies and enormous economic concentration in general over the last 20 years. things have to be understood in tandem somehow. and breaking up concentration is not simply good in itself but if there are dangerous concentrations. they do have to be broken up. the situation is much more complex with that dealing simultaneously with the fragmentation of voices and

ownership. >>host: we have a text from pacific palisades california. i thoroughly enjoyed reading your book the great debate in political philosophy last fall that open the door for me and human nature him institutional roles, hereditary politics , and when to make reforms. how can we eliminate unhealthy populism from the republic on the left and right and get the general public to trust career politicians who i believe have the experience and wisdom that burke outlined. >> thank you very much for that first of all it's nice to hear that book is assigned in college classes and especially someone who benefited from that are got something out of it. i think the question of populism in some ways has always been the core question

of american political life which is very much alive in contemporary politics now is the condition of our institution. we don't really face a choice between the early and populism and the view that the people have all the answers and should be empowered directly and that the elites have all the answers and they should have the power the answer embodied is that no one has all the answers. politics have to arrange itself around the reality that no one has all the answers and no one should have all the power. it gives people the power to exercise power through the mechanism of leverage but gives those institutions significant power. judges are at a distance from

the public the president is not as directly answerable as members of congress. we have competing power centers. federalism. the logic of all of that begins from the premise that no one knows everything and that being the case we have to put different power centers with each other with broad agreement to have a majority in congress and a public sentiment and that change happens slowly and i can be frustrating so it's a role for populism is important that they take seriously public concerns and priorities and that we have to respect that there is such a thing.

as expertise with term limits in congress and that somebody has to have the power and that kind of system and it might as well be people answerable to the public rather than a permanent bureaucracy or a permanent staff structure it's a matter of finding balance in our system is pretty good. >>host: portland oregon. >>caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. before i get to my question cream abdul-jabbar racism is like dust it's everywhere in the world until you shine light on it, you don't see it.

and then deal with that and the rest of the world to follow and how do we make the supreme court an independent body and also for the body to renounce a dedication with the political affiliation of their decision-making. there it is so the fully independent supreme court if we think it will always make better decisions and there is a huge practical challenge

fully independent if you have this much power and accountability and who will decide who was on the court. if they are not answerable to officials if they are pointed. and there is a connection between a democratic system there is still some independence i'm open to idea life on tenure of the supreme court and with the 18 year term and don't have justices appointed when they are 50 and then serve 40 years on the court and then you're stuck with whatever you get but you have a little more of a chance to change the makeup of the court. supreme court justices go to the appellate court they still

have lifetime tenure as judges but on the supreme court only a period of 18 years. so every president we get two or three appointees and you have more balance between democratic politics and the senate judiciary. it's workable idea i can imagine anybody would be sitting on the court 40 years and the balance between balance and accountability will never be perfect. >>host: next call from maryland go ahead. >>caller: good afternoon. i want to preface with the comment leading up to the question. over the last 45 years so what he just mentioned about the contempt the democrats have a republicans, from what i have

seen with current events that began in 2000 because democrats feel they were robbed of the white house by the supreme court. and that continued into the 2010 with the american garland seat from obama and then senate republicans holding that up and they feel they were robbed of that see and then when it continues on into 2016 they believe they were robbed of a second seat because hillary clinton had 3 million popular votes more than president trump it in all those institutions on - - instances the constitution ruled out not their emotions. my question is, is your

characterization president trumps character and how do you put that up against the 2016 with the exoneration of hillary clinton and then directly into crossfire hurricane at the end of july and then continued as we know now that illegal wars the original and one renewal and then morphs into crossfire. >>host: there is a lot there. he is building a pattern there, yuval levin. >> like a good prosecutor. the story of contempt begins earlier and you can see the left contempt for the right in the board hearing in the eighties and earlier than that and the polarization of politics didn't just begin

with barack i certainly agree it is worse than a century for a number of reasons he mentioned and others but i don't defend hillary clinton's character i don't think we had a good option in the 2016 election both candidates were under fbi investigation that is completely unprecedented. but the question of character is not legalistic question about all these particular scandals it's how a person thinks of the responsibility that he has when he rises to the presidency and how he treats people. i think there is a narcissism of president trump thinking about the world. and that bullying attitude shows the attitude that he has about immigrants and others.

is just not something we should see in our president. i don't think it's about the particular scandals and how they are worked out but character that's what matters and there's no way around it we see that with the crisis we deal with now. you can never really get away from character. >>host: whenever we have an in-depth guest we asked them to list their favorite books and here were yuval levin choices. >>host: tell us about those last two books. >> this is a list you might expect from a conservative.

the last book is a very in depth study of the lincoln douglas debates a political theorist and philosopher and the teacher for many years at augustana college and he wrote the book in 1959 that is a close reading of the lincoln douglas debates to put them in an extraordinary way successfully in the philosophical context of classical political thought and to articulate the way of thinking of morality to show the depth of the issues at stake in the lincoln douglas debates and through that in american politics in the moment of greatest crisis is still in print and well worth your while. looking at the list now the only work of fiction which

speaks to my weaknesses as a reader, is a great english novel written by george eliot with the pen name of marian evans. one of the great english writers of the 19th century. published 1871 but set in the 18 thirties. it's an epic novel they get that hugely important issues of family and community and the status of women and how social change happens and a great gripping story. i was introduced by a wonderful teacher who laid it out for her students as a way to think about the human condition.

>>host: he is currently reading father putnam's the upswing and the year of our lord 1943. >> the upswing is putnam's next book he is known for the book he wrote in 2000 that describes the breakdown of american civic institutions and the rise of loneliness of individualism in the extreme form and one of the great social observers of american life. the book upswing which is supposed to be out this summer now it has been delaye delayed, actually looks a subject we took up earlier the pattern of humanitarianism over the last century to describe a path that shows a

coming together and pulling apart if you look at social indicators not only civic engagement but immigration and cultural diversity, economic inequality and the condition of many institutions you find america was intensely individualistic to mobilize in the direction of solidarity and then began to pull apart and now we are at another extreme and that will be out in a few months i guess. alan jacobs is impressive but has written some wonderful books about perception of intellectual life and theology so this book published a few years ago is about a group of

thinkers in the final years of the second world war to envision and imagine that is gripping the done and i recommend to everybody. >>host: has putnam's book held up? >> yes and no. and met with criticism at the time which in some ways was right. part of what it described as the demise of american civic life was more like the evolution. people doing different things together so the old clubs and civic organizations definitely did get weaker. but the fundamental argument that the country was headed in the direction of isolation of a dangerous excess was right and the problem became worse over time with political

polarization and the growth of technology the social media brings us together but they do that by bringing us apart and many trends pointed to have that only been shown to be right have gotten worse over time. >>host: a little less than half an hour left with our guest to participate in our conversation. for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zone we will's growth on --dash michael from new york good afternoon. >>caller: thank you for having me on and enjoying the conversation. i have a few observations in

the basic question. we are a nation of debaters no doubt about that. and compromise is essential to our problems. and to interject a gentleman who wrote a book on populism and that it will not save us. my question is although compromise is essential how can or why should we compromise the core beliefs and something they believe that runs counter to it? with the abortion issue no matter what side you're on. >> thank you.

>> it points to the time that you never will not - - what you mean by compromise. and that's is giving part of what you want on a practical policy question by prioritizing what you want based on your core beliefs. and what most matters to you. so there are certain issues like abortion was very difficult to compromise and for practical matters when we face the choice that is all or nothing we generally strive to turn it into something more like a give-and-take. abortion has been taken over by the courts that has been those on - - less open many on the pro-life side would say it

should be determined in the states and the diversity of outcomes. with those liberal abortion regimes and others less so. and the most liberal abortion regime in the western world. practically no constraints whatsoever. it is much more extreme than every european society. and a lot of people have very strong views on the moral question to be open to more moderate laws that allow for the views to be respected to a greater degree. is not just the core principles but in allows

people to tell the difference and then to make it clear what matters most to you. >>host: jen in california. >>caller: it's good to see c-span back to normal. even though you're not in the same room. the last two examples of extreme police brutality one against mr. floyd. the other from buffalo that didn't seem to be doing anything and was brutally shoved down and then had 50 police officers walked past him. and how do we look at that?

it was horrible. because he's black and the other gentleman was white. very huge racial problem but also badly trained police that is endemic. in many places. and the liberal places thank you for taking my question. >> i appreciate that point.

and with that tendency to corrupt which is undeniable and the reason why there always has to be ways to keep power in check and make people with authority accountable. some of it is racial. some of it is abuse of power. it's important to see the czar exceptions the police in america many of all races and backgrounds who are doing enormously important work and have to be respected even as police training practices and social institutions more broadly are reformed and transformed to address the problems that we have. it's a very complicated problem. but no question the abuse of power is a constant threat whether in the name of racism and as a form of abuse. it should be totally unacceptable what we have learned this week that known for years this abuse exist and needs to be addressed.

we can't just wait for this to pass. but it has to be done and always in a way that respects the need for order a real nee need, especially in those communities of the most significant breakdown order the last few weeks. and the complicated challenge and to never forget giving people power means they also have to be washed with that basic principle. >> in a time to build you write this is the irony we have repeatedly confronted the failure of institutions lead us to demand to be uprooted or demolished we cannot address those failures without rebuilding those very institutions. >> there is a tendency but the

past few decades in politics to say we need to burn down institutions get them off and be liberated from them with the struggle against the establishment these are all understandable and driven by real frustrations that we need functional institutions and responsible and respectable elites we need the police. we just do no way around it we need the power to be exercised in responsible ways is not enough to say get rid of them because ultimately society cannot function without them so the challenges harder how do we hold them to account not just get rid of them.

>>host: massachusetts please go ahead with your question. >>caller: it's great to talk to you this afternoon from massachusetts and i want to give you some background about mysel myself. first of all i have been a student of demographics for years and also wrote recently an article about morality in america and where this fits in the mia troops i would like to apply that to the plurality of america. i have this mantra that's part of my dna four years that goes something like this. of the secular world goes u

up, civilization goes down and morality. i want your comments on that statement in my closing remarks and i also want to say that education of morality will solve many of these problems that people have been calling about in our country and this is a beautiful country we live in. thank you. >> every effective form of education is a form whether learning history to inspire us to be better people rather than lose faith and hope in our country, whether education directed specifically to form a character and help to shape us. ultimately the information they perform one way or another that if they are deformed this is why the

characterization matters enormously. and the evolution average religiosity is complicated and in some ways to see a decline of religious practice to see an increase in the demand and hunger and it can be answer that way again if they approach society from contemporary problems to the source the challenges of alienation and loneliness or racism and injustice. there is an enormous opportunity now for the institutions to rise up and offer themselves as respectable and responsible formative institutions.

i don't think we see it enough in this moment demands at so when i imagine how we might make our way forward to revitalize society, that moral institutions as ways for each of us to become better from the local and personal level up to the national. >> you use the word devotion in your conclusion. >> devotion is what is required for us to be appropriately committed to the institutions that we belong to in society. things that we can admire and respect and look up to. ways we could make better by making ourselves more like

what we admire. rather than just promote ourselves on a platform. what we really want is to be a part of something worthwhile to help improve our country and world. sources of devotion are what we need now. we don't think so because we by the language of easy-going cynicism but there is an enormous hunger for proper objects of devotion and the revitalization of our country will proceed that if it happens. >>host: a text message from a family doctor in mississippi. please comment on the concept of political correctness. >> the ways to describe those mainstream institutions to those tenants of the left and

progressivism. and as the price of admission to american life you cannot be a professor if your views are not the views of the majority are you cannot participate in professional institutions are be a journalist. i think it's a problem that we confront with liberalism in society with there are ways we on the right exaggerate that we can imagine we are held back because other people have conspired to keep us back. but we have to be better to offer ourselves as an alternative for a way forward for america with a more inviting form. what we say is to exclusive and is a speech everybody in america when that happens we shouldn't be surprised.

and that is the fault of other people. >> have you ever been canceled on a college campus? >> no. i have not i have spent a lot of time on college campuses back when i was still allowed to travel i hope to get back to that when it's allowed again i have seen instances of disorder around political events also to be at uc berkeley three years ago on the night there were riots and the fire on campus. not about me thankfully but i have seen it happen and i know those have suffered the cancel closer but not myself.

>> at the heart of this pressure is what has come to be called identity politics on college campuses it appears to amount to the acute emphasis on structural power relationships among different racial socioeconomic camps these are understood in terms of the oppressors and the oppressed. >> it's an effort to try to understand contemporary american progressivism as it presents itself on college campuses in its own terms and on the best terms possible. there is a way of understanding getting to those what we started with today to say the right tends to think about political challenges as order versus disorder or civilization are barbarism or left this thinks oppressor and

oppressed because the right begins with the social order is difficult and thinks that social order is the hardest thing and is the necessary prerequisite the left tends to think oppression is social problems it has to be with power relationships obviously there is truth to both of these but it does seem ultimately in order to have justice you need to have order and worry about social order so we can have the kind of society capable worrying about justice. >> that this decision and disagreement between left and right runs very deep is genuinely serious and they offer serious arguments how to make society better. and in a sense it serves us

wel well. >> your recent mention of term limits provoked a correction i see term limits as a possible way to break the cycle of the predominant role of money in our political lives. with federal legislators to raise money for reelection. >>host: i apologize you are cutting out but i think we got the gist of the term limits comment. >> the question about term limits is exactly what is it a

solution to. it is a very powerful permanent bureaucracy so to build up the knowledge and experience over time and then members come and go with this permanent bureaucracy. to those that are there for the long term are also the people answerable to the public. i can see the case for term limits that some problems we have arise with the corruption people being in these jobs for too long simply term limits would create a worse problem and in some ways the same problem as now you still had people who are ultimately corrupted over time. they been there forever to see as a permanent infrastructure

politics they would not be elected officials they would be lobbyist, staff, people around the system and i don't think they are better. i certainly see the problems but i don't think that's a solution. >> some call that the deep state? >> yes. so therefore it's important the people that remain over time be elected but i also do think no value and experience there is such a thing to be legislator and expertise and we do want people in congress who know what they're doing. we should underestimate the value of people who have been around a while to establish themselves those that are less in the grip of the power of money to build up their own constituency and authority

over time. and i think term limits would not serve us well. >> before we run out of time i went to read this e-mail isn't that continued growth of the federal government at each election more important federalism isn't taken seriously by the powers in dc we no longer have the freedom to experiment with ways to do things the supreme court has power than of the founders vision people are still still sorting and moving to areas where like-minded people live. can our republic survives self-segregation? >> that raises a number of important questions there is a paradox to have less trust in our government at the same time giving more power to the government and resources.

and it does seem to me with a core argument that one way forward is by increasing the amount of power and authority to the state and local governments federalism offers a way of diversity into strength rather than let it become a debilitating weakness. i think government is more functional at the state and local level we should allow more governing to happen as a matter of constitutional principle and basic political practice it would make a lot of sense to emphasize the ways in which our differences can be expressed in the federal system is the network in response to the pandemic has different places differently and places to respond differently generally speaking we have been well served by the federal system in that

crisis and is something that can serve us well in other areas. >>host: in florida good afternoon. >>caller: i want to make a comment first of all in a different northeastern minnesota for generations to people who settled the land in southern minnesota as farmers and through the homestead act. going up in a working-class home now i'm a conservative

and i find it just incredibly ironic that this city and state would have this explosion of violence in this horrible murder of this black man. it seems the irony says at all. i could go on about racism and the culture but i will spare you that my question is as he said earlier how does he explain the allegiance of the jewish americans by a large as

a liberal socialist and liberal philosophy of american politics? i find it crazy. >>host: we got the point let's ask yuval levin. >> first of all with the first point of minneapolis is a tragedy more than an irony in a terrible tragedy the entire country is rising up to respond to on the second question there are deep roots in terms of ethnic politics and a tendency towards political radicalism among american jews but i would say also there is a fairly large growing segment semi community

is diverse in the argument the left and right ought to make two people and america should reach beyond the spatial communities to speak to all of us as americans as a single nation to appeal to our highest aspirations both parties are at the best when they do that. >> is somebody which should buy one of your books what would you recommend? >> you cannot pick among them is like parents of children. and the great debate read in college courses and translated and speaks to people that people should read them all. >> the other two we have been talking about is the fractured republic as well as his most

recent a time to build for the past two hours has been our guest of the tv. we appreciate your time. >> thank you c-span. >> for entertainment and ideas about religion and community that can enhance everybody's lives. for dialogue around the critical issues over time, we are gathered here tonight via virtually at a time when so much feels uncertain. but over the past two weeks it is become abundantly clear, there is no more urgent time to talk about voter suppression and ahead of the upcoming 2020 electi