his 1980 interview with the bbc, it's in. those interviews were conducted from the oval office with reagan discussing a variety of issues. including his hollywood days, the 1983 bombing that killed u.s. marines in lebanon. his vision for u.s. soviet relations and the assassination attack that left him seriously wounded. it's the american story, watch american history, this weekend on c-span three. ♪ >> author and american enterprise institute scholar levin talks about u.s. political history and the political divide in the country today. the other of the great debate, the fractured republic and a time to build. >> june 7, 2020, what is your assessment of the u.s.?

>> thank you for having me. that's a wonderfully brought question to open with and a challenging one. we are living in a moment of crisis, that is hard to deny. we've been through a string dominated by public health crisis. ... >> this is the time it makes us wonder us our institutions are going to prove to me. however going to write a challenge like this. i think you get off at the scene is a time of crisis. because it is a time of testing, is also a time for us to think about what american strengths are pretty what we are gonna as a country and how we government to address numerous problems. see 500 we get here. yuval: that's awfully

complicated question. our country has always tried to strike a balance. between the dignity and equality and the individual on 100 some form of strength of community and the other. every free society faces that tension. i think our society has in the past, has really emphasize the individual. emphasized the freedom and defense diversity. that has present enormous advantages and benefits but there's another side to the coin the other side can look sometimes like isolation. it can look like alienation and loneliness. i think we have seen all that in this 21st century. this has been an era that has been marked by some pisces break from 911 in beginning of it to the financial crisis to now, a pandemic read and it forces us

to look to the sources of our strengths. in ways that have to and when he would drive us to think about our history and on the undercover should push us to look at the future . our politics is always good doing. ever somebody like me to try to work at the intersection of political theory and public policy, theory and practice room politics this fully time to think about fundamentals. look for ways to draw strength from what is been good about our country. to address the problems this long had. see five in your book the fractured republic, you talk about the norm. have we ever had an arm and what you considered to be the norm in this country. yuval: is a very important question because i think we live in a time that is it something like a misperception of the norm read living in the moment that culturally is very dominated by the baby boomers. the generation of people born between 1946 in the early

1960s. these still today, although there often in their 70s and in their 60s the people are running our core institutions and who are chart in charge of our politics. and present donald trump was born 74 years ago this month. in june of 1946. george w. bush was born in july of 1946 and bill clinton was morning august 1946 and barack obama was born in 1961. they're all boomers. in the life experience that they have had, has actually been a pretty unusual version of america. in america they came out of the second world war very unified. you and having achieved something great coming together in globalization breathe country and enormous confidence in its government and institution in big business and big labor and big government working together to solve problems. and over the course of the 50 or 60 years, since that kind of height rated we have lived

through fragmentation and diversification a lot of it has been good vertically those who been on the origins those who are alienated from a mainstream consensus. but is also meant that we have lost a solidarity is a defined america. a lot of our politics now is defined by the sense of loss about that pretty and defined by it since the era of the baby boomers childhood was the norm and that we have fallen from that. that eric was not the norm. anytime in the 19th century you would find a divided society with very little confidence in its institution. in dealing with some economic and cultural forces that were very much like what we are saying now. as immigration and industrialization, urbanization. our country has a lot of resources to draw on. and thinking about how to do with a moment like this. it is important not to misperceive the norm. 1950s, the early 60s,

america was a very unusual form of our society we should not simply take it is norm prettiness and was we're stuck in that place. sort of regurgitating with the boomers did when the young. peter: should be the ideal . speech of no, i don't think so. deals are not about what one particular moment in history. our ideals should be about or principles, how we treat each other pretty think our ideals are written in the declaration of independence. the core fundamental beliefs of your all created equal. that our government begins from that premise. but as a result we have some freedom as individuals but we also are a strong united society. those core principles along with the ideals that are laid out as forms of government. institutional design can lead and provide us with what we need to live through very different kinds of times. and challenges. i think this kind of ideals are what we should look to in a moment like this. our politics can't be or

organize from returning to simple nature. the nitrous off is not as cold and his people think it was. for many of americans, it was very far from that. in any case, history does not go backwards. question should be, natalie become strong for the future enemy as a conservative, that means reaching to our principles and think how we can apply enduring ideals to changing circumstances. that is where politics should be striving to do. that means coming to terms with the circumstances and understanding of country as it is. and being at home in the summer can happen would be her best self at this time. and not return to some bygone golden age pretty think the left and the regrowth, engage and his nostalgia markedly gets into the way of constructive policy. peter: fractured republic, he came out in 2016. life in america is always getting better and worse at the same time. liberals and conservatives both

frequently and says the path to the america the dreams is easy to see but also that our country was once on the very bath and is been thrown off course by the foolishness or wickedness of those on the other side of the aisle. the brought republic meanwhile, find resulting political debates little evidence of real engagement with contemporary columns and few attractive solutions. yuval: that is a description of my frustration with some of the basic dynamics of canterbury objects. i think it is the end of both parties. there is a way which republican party often hears for the social arrangements and cultural arrangements for the 19 and early 60s in the democrats think of the economic arrangements of the time. but the fact is the market changed for from a time for some good reasons. open income opportunities for people who have been at the

margins of our society also created options and choices and economic dynamism in ways that we have benefited from and honestly predict elsa came at a cost in thinking how we address that cause, we cannot just think about how we go back to an early social order. the study would conservative does. and the question is finally applied going during ideas to a new situation. i think we've spent too of her time thinking about whose fault it is that we fell from heights further than thinking about how do we prepare for the future. our politics to have remarkable little to say about the future. we do not talk much about one american is going to need say in 2040. this is just impossibly far away. twenty years from us is closer to us as the year 2000 and it is exactly what we should be thinking about in our politics. i think there is a need to give ourselves out of the rut of the nostalgia from midcentury america and think as

conservative and progressive his and left and right is a market in general but what we want for the future and only now need to be building to get there. yourself as a conservative. it is coming to you predict speech of a lot of my work has been about that question of what that means with the left right divine in american politics and the politics of a lot of freak societies. it's really about. to me is from isaac premises, almost from an anthropologist would be pretty my conservative schism starts from that human beings are born less-than-perfect. in a form fallen were broken or twisted. and formed before we can be freed. that defamation is done by the court institutions about our society. my family and community and religion. and by education. and ultimately also by politics and culture. and so those institutions that are capable of that formation

highly valued and treasured. they should be preserved. it for themselves to be providing generations of people with what they need to be a free society. and because again from the premise that it's very difficult to do, that kind of formation is essential and difficult, on concert the institutions that are capable of it. i think people who describe themselves as progressives at their best came from a different premise, from the premise that we are actually born free a lot of people not free and not living up to their potential because of being oppressed by institutions that impose on them and the oppressive status quo. if there's some truth to both of these years. but what you choose to emphasize, runs very deep in your character and sense of what politics is about. the free society does need the boat but it seems to be mailed to monthly the conservative view offers what society needs mostly just a sense of how social order and also enables justice. i am conservative. peter: in your most recent book that just came up this year, time to build.

our souls and institutions save each other in an ongoing way when there flourishing, our institutions make us more decent and responsible. but when they are flagging, and degraded, our institutions fail to form us or they do for us to be cynical, self-indulgent or reckless. reinforcing exactly voices that undermine the free society. yuval: this book is really about the nature of the social prices that we are living through. the previous which unfortunately for, the republic, tries to think in broad terms about the social dynamics, the history that is let us to the polarization that we are living with in our society. this newer book, a time to build, think about the institutional underpinnings for the social crisis we are living through pre- the prices that we know to be social crisis. it's about how we connect with each other. that is not how we understand ourselves as individuals to be

part of a larger full predict a crisis of alienation of isolation, not only political polarization but is not private lives of sin, this version leads people to hopefully always, an enormous increase in suicide rates over recent years. they argue that a lot of that has to do with the weakening of our institutions. and particularly with a sense of on the part of the people within those institutions that the purpose of the institution is not informed them, not to mold them, but it is to serve as a platform for them to stand on be seen and build the following build their own brand. for elevate themselves british i think there has been this time of different mission of the court institution from politics to the professions to the media and academy. i love people south think of the institutions they are part of the existing stuffers for themselves rather than the mold of our character freighted and behavior and some recovery of what it means to be part of an institution to be shaped by the institution pretty think it is very important to the recovery

of our society life. he really said very powerfully in politics. it's become so performative in our people plan for congress, basically to get a bigger social media following and to get a better time southern cable news rather than to think about how to work from within the institutions to change a picture for the better. peter: and date you write in a time to build that we have seen a powerful additional source of general election dysfunction pledge takes us deeper towards the core of congresses institutional confusion. silica, many members of congress have come to understand themselves most fundamentally of players in a larger cultural take a system of the point at which is not legislated or governing further kind of performance that outrage or partisan audience and you specify. you mentioned that gates, republican of florida.

in alexandria or cortez. two people represent this. yuval: i gave examples pretty but i think it's much more widespread notes pretty that we have come to a place where we think of our political institutions as platforms for cultural performances. as i say, people run from congress to give blue checkmark next to the name on twitter. more than to enact legislation. there are trying to go to predict trying to improve our society with the role of politics in place fundamentally a platform rule. a way to put themselves in a place where they can generally outrage of the voters about the reading they can perform. if they can as outsiders and comment about congress rather than insiders and act within congress. and obviously that's been happening in the presidency as well. i think the presence of a physical that more than any present aspirated is a place to perform. in the present to sees 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 himself as the ultimate insider intersystem with the responsibility that is defined by the rule that he place. it ultimately argues that to recover something of a functional institutionalism the we have to teach ask ourselves the question of enough don't ask any more politics. given my role here, how should i behave in a goes well beyond politics. as a member of congress are present, how should i behave but as an employer and employee as a pastor or a congregant a parent or a neighbor, given that, how should behave here. that is a way of living are institutional roles form and shape the way they behave in society in ways might drive us towards greater responsibility and sense of obligation to another rather than just thinking of ourselves standing alone in a platform and acting out the kind of cultural rage. the logic of social media has overtaken a lot of our core

institutions. we think we push back against that pretty. peter: so technology has literal interlace entrant today's political role. it. yuval: yeah a role. lasers the role we wanted to pretty think the forces here and deeper than technology. not just at the whim of social media for the internet. we use them in these ways because that's what we're looking for. anything the larger social process that we have been living through, has been a function of the kind of liberalization, diversification. in the america we are talking about before, in the middle of the 20th century, many of the great social forces in the country were telling people be more like everyone else. they were forces of conformity. this sounds districting 20 people. in our times, the same social forces are telling everyone to be yourself. the forces of individual liberation. there's a lot of good to that predict but it also can tear society apart and i think we can find the balance can push against some of the places where we tend to lean too hard.

right now the means they are covering solidarity and how we think about our society. peter: honoring your book the great debate into her conversation as well. and when to start by reading this quote from it. if the political left and right often seem to represent genuinely big points of view and our national seems almost by design to bring to the surface questions that divide them. and we become a country of the political left and right. yuval: that is really the subject of the book. it is a work on intellectual history. it's a book that begins my dissertation at the university of chicago great and never a developed into a general book. look at the origins of the left right divide which really different ways is been the subject of my work more broadly than it does that by including through the lens of the late 18th century debate between edinburg and thomas paine.

edmund burke, the great irish born english politician thought to be one of the fathers of modern conservatism. thomas for an english born american revolutionary war figure who then became a very important figure in making the case for the french revolution. in revolutionary through and through. and they were engaged with each other. they had an argument about the initial entrant natural social change in encapsulated but over time would become the important distinctions between the left and right in a politics. it begins in summer spices i describe in my view, beginning from a kind of different anthropology. just about how it is that the human being enters the world and what we will require neural tube driving force to be free. one of these views are always a generally speaking, liberal views. they belong in the free society. they believe in democracy, they believe in individual liberty. they believe in protecting the equal rights.

they differ fundamentally but with free society really is because they differ about the nature of the human person. and i think the debate, but had to advance the good. it is still the right way to understand the left right debate in our politics. the left and the right are not actions in the sense that each space it owns good. if the parties him in that they are divided by difference of opinion about what would be good for everyone. for society at large. as of the differences constructive difference i think politics for it can be very ugly and divisive. it is necessary. it's a way of framing and formulating the debates we have but the country stood. i think it still serves at this) is a difference between left and right that were evidenced at the end of the 18th centuries. and in many ways are self relevant the part of our politics up with the about pretty. peter: what is your break in front back on that you came to this point of view. yuval: white background.

hyman an internet. my family came to the u.s. and i was eight years old so i grew up here. i new jersey. college in washington dc. the american university and worked on having a some and went to graduate school at the university of chicago. thinking back to work in the bush administration. first, at the department of health and human services and then the bush white house. as a policy staffer in president george w. bush's second term. and then went into the think tank world where my work is really meant at the intersection of my academic book was about, political theory and philosophy more my work in public policy husband about pretty which is been about political parties. now i'm a scholar, are on a quarterly journal called national affairs usually started in 2009. in some ways it's ready to connect. partisan politics to help each shed light on the other.

as i came to the conservative views, that is kind of a mystery. some of that has to do with influences the runway going up. and my father is a conservative. but it also ultimately reaches some mysterious level we never fully understand better cells. how we come to have the fundamental views we have as often a little bit mysterious. i am impressed by institutions that enable people to thrive. that means i am very impressed by the american social order and by the american constitutional system and i think we can draw a lot of our history to help us with the source of problems. soma conservative. 251 of the non- negotiables pretty. yuval: i think those are stated in the declaration of independence. we believe in human equality and dignity. this with people on the street now. it's because we all saw on vid video, just take gross violation

and abuse of the human person who had to be an equal and wasn't. that is i think in non- negotiable fact about americans. whatever political inclination, then we can differ a lot. we all believe we are all created equal. we are all endowed with basic rights. the government exists to protect his rights. i think from there on, we have a lot of debate. how should government protect those rights and what would be most effective. but the basic ideals, the written charter of our society are the non- negotiables of american politics. and i think the trip. peter: will good afternoon and welcome to book tv on "c-span2". this is our monthly "in depth" program. we missed you last couple of months and were glad to be alive again. author and scholar yuval levin. he is the author of five books. beginning with tierney reason which came out in 2001 of the massive in the future, 2008, the

great debate which we have discussed breaking out in 2013. the fracture republic, renewing america's social contract and the age of individualism came out in 2017. and finally, his news looked time to build. from family community to congress in the campus, health recommitting to our institutions and revive the american dream. we want you to participate in our conversation this afternoon. there are several ways of doing that. we will begin with phone numbers (202)748-8200 for those of you who live in the east and central outcomes. in question, for doctor yuval levin. and you can also text him a question or comment, please include your first name, and the city and state that you live in. as we can get that context.

(202)748-8903. they also have all of our social media sites, instruments on facebook, twitter. that book tv is our handle reading and begin taking those calls in just a few minutes did doctor yuval levin, back to the great debate. it is been the lasting effect of the center of the evolution impressed and in this country. yuval: while the french revolution was really one of those core ethical moments in the history of the west. it's been absolutely enormous effect. it is unleashed the modern wave of revolution for good and bad. it created the sort of frame, the shape of modern radicalism that ended up shaping the 19th century politics and in many ways, is still with us rated it is important to see the french revolution is not where modern liberalism was born. liberal society broadly

understood that with the left foot as in our way of life. really began in the united kingdom well before the french revolution. it's also important to remember that the american revolution, before the french revolution. not after. and i think the american revolution as the great turning point in human history. the great were the truly free society is made possible the achievement of the dreams of liberalism. but after the french revolution, the politics of every subsequent society, the politics of our society has been divided over a core question about social change. had to be changed. you will change my fully on the past or by breaking of the past. that basic question which in a lot of ways, the distinction between left and right when he come down to it. became the defining organizing question of the politics of not only france but britain and the united states.

democratizing countries in europe and essentially every free society today. as of them before evolution, you big english that parties are divided over the question of whether it is the crown of the parliament should have power. i was changing by the end of the 18th century but after the french revolution, the question that divided the left and right was essentially the question of the french revolution and the question of whether the purpose of our politics is an on going constants revolutionary process. and it ultimately will liberate it's entirely of the burdens of the past or for the purpose of our politics is a process of gradual change to address problems and keeps us connected to the roots of western civilization. and enables us to make the most of our inheritance. former viewer is the progressive of the letters the conservative the french revolution has enormous amount about to do with why that is the nature of the debates we have. so it was a hugely consequential event. in many ways continues to be.

peter: ss with your descriptions of an unbroken thomas paine. burke as a patient gradual from foreign thomas paine is an operator. yuval: exactly. burke, he was a wig. he was out of joint and since he came from the but the fundamental disposition was gradual reform. reform is not revolution. and it will assistance offered in opposition. we need to change gradually so that we don't lose what we have built-up works. and that we can change what does not work. and pain had much less patience for that gradual change. he said we need to overturn inside of it. we know the principles, the guide to free politics so that should throw out what came from an age of oppression and start over in the right way. it was much more radical revolutionary. both views are really contained within the american revolution. they are both a conservative and

a radical revolution. you can see it in the ration of independence which begins by stating very radical principles. but then goes on to state a joke just over drove government for shallow reasons. if any is on to list the reasons why the margins want to revolt. they are very conservative reasons. and been denied the rights of englishmen. and recourse of the institutions that have long been there sprayed their market revolution, unlike the french credit which is purely political. they were both a conservative than the progressive revolution. some contained within it the entire framework of the politics that would become ours. peter: (202)748-8201. for those of you in the mountain and specific time zones. your first call comes from elisabeth in segars, new jersey. hi elisabeth.

guest: hello how are you. i want to ask mr. yuval levin. you'd just explained that this connect in the congress and the senate. and how they go along with self-serving and self-absorbed dictator but the president. things are not heading up. just wondering what he would say about that. yuval: will thank you for the question. i'm a conservative he was critical of donald trump. i don't think he is fit for the presidency. he was on my choice. and i don't think he has done well by our country. with that said, i think the fact that her politics is polarized as it is is an important part of the reason why so many republicans have stuck by trump even as sometimes they themselves debate.

i don't think president trump is a conservative. and don't think he said beth's item views that we would want to see events or politics that we have reached a point where each party now too often defines the other party as the country's biggest problem rather than thinking about the real challenges we have. we think about one another as a core problem to be dealt with. and that kind of intense partisanship means but ultimately preferring own party erect everything else. nothing republicans of employees to rationalize and justify too much of what the president has done. two and willing to criticize him. i wouldn't criticize everything is done. i think he is appointed good judges. i think that when it comes to regulatory reform, he has done well. but generally speaking and especially in the question of character. which i think is absolutely essential and executive leadership. the people of character. i'm enormous leap critical of president trump and i think more

republicans ought to be. peter: your former boss it was recorded this morning in the new york times may be supporting joe biden. speedo yes. he hasn't sent nearly supporting exactly but i think that george w. bush, whatever you might think of the policy. and i generally like the policy he pursued, he is a man of character. i thought to see him in action whatever to the white house. i would say was struck me most of the time as he lands always with the weight of responsibility of the presidency on his shoulders. he knew his decisions mattered and that a lot depended on them they had to be taken seriously. that he owed it to the country to approach his job with the gravity that it required. that's clearly lacking in this president. peter: back to the great debate. politics is a negotiation of these principal differences in response to particular needs and

events. party politics should not be looked down upon as unseemly. thomas burke argues. on the contrary, is means by which well-intentioned politicians joined together as honorable patriots. a. yuval: every book is very interesting on this property's really one of the few people makes a positive case for party. there's always been a pragmatic case of parties. necessary to organize our politics sprayed with very few people actually made explicit must philosophical case for the need for parties in a free society. brooke is one of thomas jefferson's another. in there with them themselves in different parties. but the buzz saw ultimately what parties enable us to do is form wrong coalitions. thinning of parties now that is fundamentally divisive. as breaking it down into factions. but in fact parties broadly understood it was strong incentive to inform broad, not narrow coalition for you to

think about the run candidates in alabama and ornament, you can build a pretty broad intent pretty for the republican party need to do the same time you can find ways to appeal to people in broad terms and in different circumstances and situations and that is course in politics pretty it forces compromise and enforces cooperation. ultimately the institutions louis required free society, are ones that forced us to compel us to come accommodate each other pretty the congress existed compelled. there's always going to be fundamental differences. people will disagree with each other pretty that's never going away. the question is how we handle that in lieu of that. the answer in a free society and liberal societies, mice. so you want institutions that force you into the tents that require you to compromise in order to achieve anything. i do think brooke is right, parties belong to the list of those institutions.

peter: from maryland. guest: i'm thinking about what is been set in the first call. the first caller said dictator. all of the people who testified so long ago were right about the politics. absolutely right. they did not have the right to say the president that he was ptolemy. it's called stupidity long ago, he talked about the guy who organize, the main guy, not the philosophical good read this about him, or whatever.

- that he's a simple god. and we better watch him see that he don't grab the lube oil read with that watching. i'm not with the trump, come to my house and so on. [inaudible]. a group of them, is the best lawyer in the united states. whereupon summer. trump is not following the constitution. he's not following laws or anything. that is fine with me. peter: okay we will leave it there. you called in a little bit about political character. yuval: i think is important say that donald trump is not the dictator. i have a lot of problems with

how is governed. and i think he doesn't have the character he takes to be your president pretty but he is our president. he is elected. he has not violated the constitution, at least not any obvious way that i can see. our debates about some of the things he's done. those debates will be potiphar's where they belong. but for all of the objections that i do have for him i think the argument they sometimes hear that he's an authoritarian dictator, hard to stop well-founded. if anything, is unusually weak president is not use the powers of the presidency and nicety might have been the crisis of the public health crisis that we ability through this year. in another circumstances. sideways some objections in the have many more. but don't think he is a dictator by any means. that word should not be just on around. peter: soda color. guest: good morning guys,

excellent conversation. on the subject matter, my question was in reference to inequality. the protesters are using to advance or maybe one side, maybe past ten years since trump is been elected or maybe. has the society done as an injustice and not making his face when we inaugurated this in the late 60s, where we address this once before. have we watered down the expectations that is short changed the generations in order to compete. peter: before patrick, before we get an answer from yuval levin

what is the last couple of weeks been like for you. if what 20 miles from downtown minneapolis. guest: yes, i'm on the outskirts of minneapolis. i'm originally from wisconsin. i was here 35 years ago and went to community college and i barely got through bicycle. minnesota give me a chance. and flourished in school later in life. graduated ten years later and have contributed to the community. and i have fun with it. this is been a real disappointing time to see fall in front of me. i am in my mid- 50s i got off to a late start. i really care about the future. i'm a good have good good strong

sense of history from the past. i volunteer in all of the communities. and i work with addiction specifically and the suffrage from the covid-19 crisis. but this is been a very challenging time i was fearful for the first time that it would not end. peter: the recent headline in the new york times says how many, one of america's most liberal cities struggles with racism. guest: is it a product of these policies that have not worked pretty hard not saying a heavy hand. but are there options that we have not explored. in the character which mr. levine has brought up in reference to the possible selfishness in the groups and

individual thought processes. it's about me now and my market. peter: patrick, less braying and yuval levin with us. thank you for volume. see tip yes thank you for that and thank you for all that you do pretty slowly people like you who make this country great pronouncement silly as i kind of engagement and involvement in local communities and concerns can strengthen our society. but the first of all, on the question of the great society, is many things. on the one hand, a set of large public programs that were intended to create a new kind of social safety nets in our society. some of those have been effective in someone so pretty repaying an enormous price for them financially and physically known in ways that are going to force us to rethink how they are structured with medicare and

medicaid. and in that we have been left with a tremendous bill to pay less be thought through. subverting the future even if these programs have been a great deal of good. the graceful site is also kind of a social vision. they connected in her minds and reality to the civil rights revolution is a waste. and the prestigious the great society. 1960s and 64 and 65. in came really before the great society. i think those bills have been largely successful descent after we left her a moment that we see how much is left to do. in some) some really unquestionable basic human equality. in the struggle against racism. we should still see the real progress has been made over the years. that the kinds of that we deal with now are not on the same scale and character is the source of problems with the civil rights movement continued

with. let 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 the murderous police officer who killed george floyd in minneapolis is violating the law will be tried for murder. there was a time in our society and the level to be behind the cop partied and went our society simply would not eight value the lives of the market in the ways that now are low stupid is that also our people will. so progress has been made and i wouldn't say there's been a failure. but ultimately the progress that needs to be made his moral progress which is not the same thing as social progress. nasty be made anew in every human heart. this too is a reason why i'm a conservative. think that ultimately the problems that we have a written human heart. in the imperfection of the person and we need to be formed and educated and shaped to be moral people. we require engagement with this

moral ideals that can give us the right kind of form to be free people respect each other and to acknowledge each others for dignity. this work that has to be done in every generation is not going to end. there certainly ways we can change social institutions and structures to make the work easier and to treat people equally under the law. i do think we have made a lot of progress in the project. but there will always be a need for us to put before the rising generations the core principles and ideals of western civilization and of american society. that job will simply never end and there is no way around it in the fundamental work of forming free people is the work of every generation on behalf of the one that followed. peter: taken minneapolis. very progressive city that prides itself on minnesota's knights and the high morals. this is not the first high profile incident. in that city.

see tip and no question having liberal politics is not a solution to basic social and moral problems. his runs everywhere. in some ways, i think that there is a him a a way in which the power of the unions another structural institutional backers make it very difficult for the police department and played like minneapolis to enforce its own rules and make sure that officers treat the public with respect and dignity. so when these problems arise, they can be more difficult to do with in the liberal policy in some ways. but in every way. so i just think that we should be ready to deal with people anywhere. does not function of politics in the simple sense. these things happen. we should be glad that they have been less than they used to but we should not just accept they will always happen. we should deal with them and make sure we're engaged.

with one another is citizens make sure that our institutions are formed through the core commitments of the equality of every person rigorous of race or anything. and that was fun have to be done. i don't think politics gets us out of it. speak. peter: time to build from family and community to commerce campus. hot recommitting to our institutions and revive the american dream. stewart found in seattle. guest: hello and good morning to both of you. i would like to know how i as a non- trump supporter but definitely on the more side of park and i am on the side pain although when i was younger i was definitely inside of pain. today is a hard person i appreciate brother, more. but how can i talk to people who are trump supporters who seem to be resistant to compromise and oppose to common cause unless

you totally on that team. the partisan ship seems to have gotten way out of hand. yuval: i very much agree with you about this pretty think that in both parties the unwillingness to compromise is now the core problem of our political life. as of the there's left) is on the fact is factions within left and right that we may like not like. this effect are not willing to see each other as conversation partners has partners in compromise pretty light of a free society is compromise. and i think what polarization is really meant the 21st century, is a of the sense that ultimately compromise is the only way theater policies would function. it's happened for variety of reasons. i think one of the reasons is the fact that we haven't really had a majority and minority party in politics sometime. we look in american political history and political scientists often use the sun party in the

moon party. most times there is a strong party, might be the democrats might be republicans. and that strong party rains for a time there's a minority party force but it functions as a minority party force to compromise uses leverage at the margins where he can. then things changed as a political realignment the minority becomes majority in go through. like that. we have now lived since about the middle of the 1990s and. where are shift back and forth. we do not have a party and we can say is the majority party of the country. of the minority party of the country. in one of the things is that each party always thinks he can win everything at the next election. anna cast rated but every new president we've had who's coming to office since 1992, as common with control of the house of congress with his own party controlling both parties. a shift back and forth forth.

each party's right to imagine that they just waited out, they can control everything. they can push things in its own direction. of course when it happens, the majorities are never very big or strong. you actually don't get very much done. unless you're willing to compromise. so the major legislation that we have seen in the century, has tended to be part quite partisan and tended not to endure. have a lot of trouble being sustained as a seapower change. so i think that is taken away some of the incentive that each party might have to do with the other. at the end of the day, stability really just means acknowledging that the people you disagree with are still going to be there tomorrow rated the political dynamics are living with now are such that you might that they will be. then another election, we win it all whoever we might be. so i think that helping people see that ultimately, political progress only happens in whatever direction you care of up.

by compromise of the people who you disagree with. it's the way to advance these rescissions. and sometimes that means just working at the local level and state level what we still do about real compromise captioning. out of the state maryland we have quite conservative republican make governor. with that pretty progressive legislature in democrat. at a practical level, there's no other way. i think that kind of recognition is more on the surface of the state level at the local level. i mean, that we should be channeling more power to the state level in the political. where problems can still get resolved in a constructive way at least how our national politics recaptures something more. peter: you can send us a message via text or social media. tax number, dial carefully please (202)748-8903 and include your first name and city if you

would. and larry in 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. and very much the question that a try to pick up in the latest with that we talked about, a time to build. the guinness begin will be operated in the institutions that we are each part of. they might be communities or civic or religious education. maybe political institutions and our own communities and we have to ask yourselves how we can work together with others to advance a common goal. and given my rule here, the institution responsibility that i have how can i do better. that kind of small question is the path towards larger perform. the book is the outward to performs nothing necessary forms of congress, the party system there are reforms in the economy and the professional world.

it talks about the media and civic life. but before any of those reforms can happen people within our institution have to recognize that they are and we are part of the problem. that means we first all have safe that all of us are subject to dependency to think of her institutional responsibilities as optional of the where institutions as platforms for ourselves. taking ourselves beyond that impression in helping ourselves before for good. is beginning it's not the substitute for reform but are prerequisites. peter: ones that you tackle in a time to build is the education system. both higher and lower grade in our house book page, educational institutions are failing to educator jennifer prosperous future and more sprinted dividing the country as progressives shape curriculum pretty it literally teaches our

children that we are a country dominated by injustice and these include around the streets now. yuval: i think this is a very important point. on the one hand special to see the education system in america especially the k-12 primary and secondary schooling is enormously decentralized. it is generally held at the local level, the control. in different places can do very different things. i think that's okay. we lived with diversity and make the most of it. they're just places where ideals will be taught where i don't like much and places that i do like pretty the many other people don't. that's just going to happen in america. but i do think the point that you get to about how to teach our kids history. that's enormously important i'm very concerned that version of our history, the denies this report to the best in the history of english, a lot of

children and college students. any history would take very seriously fully the racial oppression in our society which is as old as our society and its essential to it. but they would also suit take serious and history of the struggle against the racial aggression which is also as old as our society. it offers us a lot to work with. in trying to do better as a country. simply a story of failure needed to deny students access to the model and example of frederick douglass or abraham lincoln. tubman or martin luther king is a tremendous failure of responsibility pretty think we have to teach the good and bad. we have to offer a full picture . the full picture offers the generation a huge amount to work with in making our country better. from the core ideals and principles of equality that is

always been the ideas in the course we've not always adopted them. two people who have devoted their lives to that struggling with it we learn from and be inspired by. i think efforts like the project we just denied it and sanders only only the downside and dark side. fail in a way that we should not abide read. peter: time to build, in the chapter campus cultures. harvard and yale, america's first two universities were created as conservatories four. ten orthodoxy and the train men of religion to move from the larger community to prevent pollution and seek redemption. the driving purpose of education no largely short of its religious roots. it often looks like activism that demands a larger society the kind of master pendants for some brief collective sins pretty.

yuval: inseparable tries to make sense of what is been going on in american college campuses in the last few years. it does that by and offering a little bit of perspective about the mix character of higher education in which characters always been part of our higher education. we demand low things were universities. we expect in to give people the skills they need for the american economy be expect them to give students access to the deepest truth the highest and most beautiful things in our civilization we also expect them to be engaged in trying to improve our society to be active in trying to change things. other things have been a part of americans higher education. the idea that campus activism began in the 60s, is absolutely untrue. as suggested in the quote that you just read, was actually the original purpose of the marking university. harvard and yale are really created to advance moral change

in american society. the nature of the moral change is now being advance of the campuses is different. but the character, the purpose of higher education involves that kind of social activism is not new. there's always been a very tense balance between these different names and between the aims of giving students skills are economic lessons for the aim of giving them access to a higher truth in a kind of liberal education and that interchanging society. i think the american fallen out of that balance where now feeling much too heavily in the direction of the activism and also really isn't learning about teaching produce is not fundamentally academic and you've seen displays on the campuses are enormously troubling pretty closing off of knowledge and teaching. rather than a building up of that knowledge. i think the answer that is not to pretend that we can have higher education and fluid

avoided of political activism. he has nothing to do with the larger society. it is not what we should want or expect but i think at the university they have to answer fundamentally to the academic ideal which means everything tenant does should be done in the form of teaching and learning. and that is where some of these league schools have been disconnected from their purpose in the recent years. and i think the question, the season teaching and learning as fundamental to human flourishing, as an enormous role to play in bringing the culture of our campuses back into balance. and then providing the rising generation students the kind of enormous advantage of higher education can give us. peter: another contemporary headline, petrone reps culture after she dropped this commencement after the students protest rated. yuval: is a little bit about when i am talking about here which is the idea that you

should hear from people who they are the professors don't agree with. they campuses is no place other than they accept the mainstream consensus use of society. and a lot of times it's a form of rebellion against that establishment. in fact it is the establishment. cultural progressive this now, is enormously important that college students here of room variety of uses not just intellectual diversity just for the purpose of diversity pretty should hear just anybody and everybody. there is a difference between hearing from people who play significant roles in society and just hearing from people who are just there to stir up trouble rated but broadly understood as it has been used to keep out libertarian voices and academic voices. people of ideas to offer but come from a different place politically in the mainstream of

professors and students. at an anonymous problem on the american campus. is that the cradle of the ethics. peter: claude from oregon. human very patient. and where is that. where is that. guest: is in central oregon. i don't have a question. i have a statement. i worry about himself as a country. i worry about herself is how we view ourselves as american citizens. i don't need to be thanked to be in the military. i've volunteered during the draft. i consider what i did this was for my country. and of you today a political

system that looks like a tug-of-war. two groups, basically won the same side of the coin. it just to faces. it doesn't matter which one lands on top. they'll want to be a top. ... ...

the fractured republic