online at c-span.org. >> this year, book tv celebrates 25 years of presenting nonfiction books and authors. >> and for the 22nd year in a row, book tv is live with the library of congress national book festival. >> and since 2001, book tv in partnership with the library of congress has provided signature in depth, uninterrupted coverage of the national book festival. featuring hundreds of nonfiction authors and guests. watch saturday as book tv once again brings you live, all day coverage of the national book festival. guests including carla haden, cnn supreme court analyst, nine black robes. and chasten buttigieg, here our schedule online on book tv.

live saturday, beginning at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> all right, good evening and welcome, everyone. very excited for you to be here for our modern aged panel on patrick's new book, "regime change." this is part of a new initiative at isi taking place in and around the country, look forward to many more of these evenings with you. first and foremost i wanted to share history about the modern age in case some of you aren't familiar. modern age was founded by russell kirk in 1959, but he actually had the idea for modern age in 1951. and in 1951, he began to kirk late a perspective to various investors in the midwest and his target readership was quote, professors, clergymen, leaders of business, men in

government and, and this is important, those reflective people in obscure walks of life who preserve the equilibrium of any society. so, i will leave it to you, whether you are the, you know, the titans of industry and the powerful men of government or whether you're the obscure people preserving the balance. well, the same is amusing, but i think it's sort of a fundamentally-- it's a statement about the dignity of ordinary people. because who is preserving the equilibrium in society. it's not the elites, it's the populous, people in obscure places who care about the most important things. what are the principles he said would animate modern age. precipitative judgment, wisdom of ancestors, manliness of thoughts in society, but not

being afraid to address the problem of our age. the disposition would be national, even international in ambition, but ought to have a profound middle western sensibility. he says america cannot afford to relinquish control of media expression to a small circle of elites in two or three cities who cannot truly claim to speak for the whole nation. so dan mccarthy does live in alexandria, so he's to some extent a creature of d.c. although better than most if not the best in terms of truly understanding the interests of the common good, the interests of the people. he hales from the midwest and so i think he has this beautiful way of bringing together these very constituencies and trying to order conservatism and hopefully america towards the common good. i think that no one is better than dad and hanna rowen, our new editor, we have new modern

age online website that will be launching in the fall, and we're going to have a big party for that, and we have other exciting things i don't have the liberty of sharing with you this evening, but those will be coming down the pike so please stay tuned. on the topic of tonight's event, patrick has been a friend of mine over five years, but even longer, a friend and lecturer at isi, i think he's one of the great political philosophers of our day and i was dismayed when someone sent me perhaps an illegal copy of his new book, forwarding a pdf because i few for the next week i wouldn't be able to sleep and i'd have to read this book and pondering the provocation inside the book. profound questions being asked about the nature of america's leadership class and restoring virtue, the common good, subsidiary and solidarity to america. it's fitting that a journal with a midwestern sensibility

would have a philosopher from the midwest come to address this this evening and of course, we've assembled an esteemed group of panelists to respond. of course, we have senator j.d. vance, kevin roberts and christine emba. thank you all for being here and i'd like to welcome my colleague, the editor of modern age, dan mccarthy to the stage. [applause] >> i'm daniel mccarthy and i am indeed the editor of modern age and i hail originally from the midwest. i now live, as johnnie, alluded to, within the d.c. beltway in alexandria, virginia. which intellectually at least a target rich environment. i have to preference with the adjective lest anyone get the wrong idea, but plenty of injustice within the environs

to comment about. i'm honored to be introducing one of tonight's sponsors. louise oliver is a woman of many achievements not least of which for iai's board. ambassador oliver served as permanent representative of the united states, unesco, the president of the american diplomacy foundation which we're honored to have as a sponsor of this event. louise, please come up. [applause] >> thank you, dan. it is, in fact, a great honor and a pleasure for me to be here with you all this evening, but before i say anything else, i want congratulate you, dan, on the extraordinary job you're doing on modern age. it's just, it's fantastic.

[applause] >> and i don't want to stop there. johnnie, i want to congratulate you on the incredible job you're doing with isi. it's a pleasure watching isi just rolling along under your leadership. [applause] >> now, there are certain words or combination of words that can evoke an instant recognition of what they stand for. when i was at unesco, two words that fell into that category were marshal plan. ambassadors from struggling countries all over the world kept insisting they needed an martial plan. few knew, they didn't know how it worked or why it worked they knew it played a role in helping people recover from the devastation of world war ii and convince that had a marshall plan could help their country

achieve prosperity as well. this evening, the two words that are most relevant to our discussion are cold war. those of us of a certain age know exactly what those words mean because we lived through them. those years. but what about those of you born after 1990? after the infamous berlin wall came down, after borders were reopened, after the iron curtain, so named by winston churchill, was lifted. what do the words cold war mean to you? the official definition of cold war is that it's a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action, but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. the state of war that the world experienced after world war ii, that cold war, was a decade

long struggle against the global revolutionary ideology, communism. a communist ideology was aggressively anti-nationalists, communists sought to overthrow not only governments, but national borders and religious institutions everywhere. faith fought back. so did patriotism, and despite communist attempts to promote worldwide revolution through military interventions and occupations, through the construction of puppet regimes, through persistent propaganda and subversion, even in the heart of the free world, the cold war did not turn into world war iii. the west won with diplomacy, not only with ronald reagan, but public diplomacy that expanded decades that promoted western ideas and culture. our diplomacy and statecraft

were picket effective because we were not promoting a global ideology, we were promoting freedom. our allies in the cold war trusted us to uphold the very pillars of civilization that the communists sought to destroy, the nation and religion. how is it then that today, 30 years after the end of the soviet union, american diplomacy has become so ideological and revolutionary in aspirations? today regime change is the watch word of our foreign policy establishment and liberalism is no longer a he gaugement of socialism or communism. instead, it now means a cultural program promoted through revolution everywhere beginning at home. we won the cold war against communism abroad, but at home, a culture war is establishing,

or has established a revolutionary ideology in our own institutions. those of you who participate in isi programs and activities know what this culture war has done to our colleges and universities. the results have been disasterous for our nation, politically, economically, strategically, diplomatically and culturally. and they've been disastrous for the world as well. america has waged war for decades without enjoying any of the success that we achieved through diplomacy in the cold war and now europe is a battlefield and at the same time communist china is stronger. the world needs america to recover what it lost after the cold war, the strength to resist ideology in the name of god and country. to regain our strength as a nation we have to bring an end to the revolutionary ideology that occupies our institutions at home. just as eastern europeans and

russians brought down the revolutionary communism that occupied their nations. patrick understands the conflict we're in. and his book turning the table on our revolutionary idealogs, this is to restore our country and restore peace and stability around the world. please join me in welcoming on behalf of isi, american diplomacy foundation and modern age, patrick deneen and all of our distinguished panelists. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, louise. so i will be acting as emcee and moderator today. before we begin with our panel, we first will have remarks by patrick deneen.

patrick deneen is the professor of political science at university of notre dame. many books, and with that we'll bring patrick out. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you, johnnie. thank you dan, thank you louise for those remarkable comments and thank you, all of you who are here tonight on a beautiful night, one of those rare nights in washington d.c. where you're not sweating to death from the weather that i remember all too well. i'm deeply honored by the gathering here, and those of you here by senator, by founders of the foundation, christine emba, and "the washington post." i would be remiss if i wouldn't mention that i was honored by generations of students who i

was able to mingle with and as a teacher and someone who is maybe moving toward, slightly more toward the end of my career, this is really what gives me hope is to have these just numbers of students, these growing number of students who i saw launching into the world and having an impact and i just want to thank you, all of you, from princeton days, from georgetown days and now from notre dame days for coming out tonight. you know who you are and i'm really grateful. so we're all aware of the dynamics of the current political divide, not only in the united states, but around the world. what we've seen and what has been perhaps endlessly discussed is the rise of a kind of new political dynamic in the west, seen in various forms in brecks brexit, with the election of donald trump, in italy with the prime minister.

and in other words, the word of populism as a force in our political world. one of the things that struck me about this phenomenon, how many people regard this as something new, that we have to get our heads around because of how des distinct and someone had reads greek and romans and ploss if i, that doesn't seem surprising. what surprises me, there was a time in the history of world where we would think this is not the nature and the fundamental division of politics. going all the way back to antiquity, if we read plato and aristotle and aristotle's name i'll probably mention a few times tonight. aristotle in particular states outright that all political

regimes, and i use this word advisedly, all political orders are divided in one fundamental way, between the few and the many. all political regimes have a kind of tension built into them and that everywhere this seems to be a truth, that aristotle with his empirical political science hat on, says that one sees this in the fact when he looks around contemporary greece of his day. there seem to be two predominant regime types, democracy, which is true of his athens where he was living and writing, and oligarchy, the regime of the many and the regime of the few. and aristotle, if you studied some aristotle, you can remember back to your days in introduction to political theory, aristotle regarded both of these regimes as vicious, as reflecting a kind of vice. they weren't one of the regimes he regarded as good, as a sort of exemplary, and democracy,

the many, and oligarchy, the few, they were not constituted in order to realize the common good, the good of everyone in society. they were regimes of a certain kind of party, the party of the many or the party of the few. and because of this fact, aristotle said, because of these regimes, oligarchy or democracy, we're always constituted to favor some number and some limited number of people within the regime, based upon typically class. it meant that these regimes were prone to two likely projection tris, and in fact, these two likely trajectories, were likely to follow one upon the other. the first was civil war, that in the pursuit of the interest of the party that governed, the other party would rise up and seek to assume power from them. and the other result was likely

tyranny, and one would be over the other side. here is an ancient philosopher, a theme repeated over and over again in political thought, saying that every political order is essentially destined, it would seem, to two outcomes, civil war or tyranny. if you read the papers today, you read the op-eds, you read the columns, these are two words we see a lot these days. america is in the midst of a new civil war or we're being governed in a tyrannical fashion. these ancient words have made their way back into our vocabulary. aristotle wasn't pessimistic about this. in fact, he thought there might be a way to address or redress this basic problem of politics. he said if you're really blessed and fortunate, you night have a good king or

aristocracy, but these are kind of hard to find. what most regimes allow you to do is to create what he called a mixed regime, a mixed constitution, to blend the various features and qualities of the many and the few. and in this tradition, there's actually a lot of really interesting discussion. respective virtues of the people, of the populous. and the respective virtues of the few, of those who are likely to benefit from the class advantages of being in the party of the few. the few, those who perhaps reflect the virtues of the oligarchs, they tend to have morel evaluated taste. they like nice restaurants. if you live in washington d.c., even if you're not rich, you benefit from the cuisine here. i can tell you living in south bend,way don't have quite the selection of restaurants, not as many oligarchs. and the few that we have now work in the department of transportation. [laughter]

>> the oligarchs or the few have the advantages of leisure, of education, of refinement, and of high culture. these are the things that are rightly admired among the aristocrats of old or even among the oligarchs, i just passed the blayne mansion on dupont circle and i'm glad it exists even if i'm not able to buy it for what, $30 million. on the other hand, the many, the people-- looking at you jd, reflect different kinds of virtues, they're ordinary virtues, these are people who tend to be close to the earth. they know the work of hands. they often are-- do things themselves, fix their own cars, plant their own crops. they know how to make it electric circuit close. they understand the reality of limits, a world of limitation. you have to have a budget and you have to live within it. they understand often that we can't do it on our own.

people who have money sometimes think they can do it on their own, but people who don't have money often have to rely on friends and neighbors. there are people often rooted and they have memory and they often, as described, they're people of piety. maybe because of their condition of being limited and recognizing the way in which we have reliance beyond themselves. but each of these parties also has certain vices are that kind of endemic to their condition. the few find it easier to dominate the many, they just have more tools at their hands. they can control the media. they can control the financial system. they control the institutions, the educational institutions. they are demarked by a kind of elitism, a scorn or condescension toward the many. they have the ability to live separately and often in far nicer places than the many. and the many we can say also

have their vices. they tend toward being coarse, especially when they're not led by leaders. their resentments can be manipulated by demagogues. the proposal of someone like aristotle or the whole series of thinkers, was to take the elements 6 these two groups that are found in nearly every political order, and to mix them in the hopes and with the intention that the virtues of each side would counter act and cancel out the vices of each side. and that this would actually have the result of creating a good political order, that this would actually, because of the respective virtues of each, some would contain the vices of each. this wasn't merely checks and balances, this was actually a kind of aspiration to a certain kind of virtue and a virtue

that achieved a kind of moderation, a moderation now of mixing of extremes, to use the language. now, one of the hallmarks of this tradition was a stretch to create such a constitution was difficult, such a regime was difficult, but once it was realized or to the extent that it was realized, it required order and stability and literally, a kind of balance. what it actually would be a source of danger to such achievement of such a regime, would be instability, rapid change, imbalance, and transformation. for as long as possible then, aristotle writes, if someone has such a regime, one should seek to continue it forward into time by retaining the balance and in the same way that if you ever walk with a plank on your head or something, you don't run, you

walk with a certain kind of care to keep it balanced as you're moving forward. now, in the book, i make the following argument and claim and i've been thinking a lot about this tradition as it relates to our contemporary politics and it seems to me that there's a way in which the modern world, modern age, i'm not so sure i'm as fond of it as russell kirk seemed to have been. i'm not sure that russell kirk was either. and part of which constitute modernity, we can describe it in many ways, is to describe the ancient resolution of the divide between the many and the few, and to replace it with what we might describe as a politics of progress, a politics of change, often rapid change, transformation. that rather than seeking order and stability and constancy and consideration, the modern

solution of the problem between the many and the few, maybe constantly increasing change and transformation. the liberal tradition itself, beginning with the liberal tradition, overturns this ideal of classical mixed regime, mixed constitution, in favor of a modern philosophy that argues in favor of those who will bear the responsibility of generating a society of rapid and even increasingly rapid change. and the earliest of the liberal thinkers who prepare this was especially those who argued for this, the presence of this kind of change, especially in the economic realm. and that the elites of such society, especially now the oligarchs of such a society to use the language, needed in some way to be protected or buffered from the threats that were proposed by the many, many who in particular would feel a threat of the change and

transformation of the economic realm as well as a certain amount of resentment toward the inequality. plus, classical liberalism naturally finds its opponent in marx and marxism. and becomes suspect of population more broadly. populism becomes something suspect in the views of the eyes of the classical tradition. and shouldn't be surprised in american contemporary politics, jonah goldberg, a classical liberal who would call himself, but hates the way the poses of the views of the many poses a threat to a theory of dynamic, constantly transforming economic progress. classical liberalism builds in a theory of the elites, in this

case, the economic elites have to be the guiding force in society and develops a constitutional order that seems to restrain and constrain the ability of many to interfere in the rights of property. this is no less true in what we would describe as the liberal tradition, born out antipathy toward the many and outright denigration and a distinct condescension towards the many. and according to john mill, conservativism, and if society is going to become a more progressive society of constant transformation and change and up-ending of traditional ways of doing things, one needed

especially to liberate the distinctive individuals in one society. those he praises for their individuality, in order to release what he regards as human-- the human orientation to being creatures who are-- who are progressive beings in their essential form. in order to achieve this, he makes the famous argument in on liberty of liberating these individuals from the constraints of custom and tradition and in particular, liberating them from the constraints of the demos, the threat of the democracy as acting as a kind of restraint upon the progress of society. one of the ways in which mill argued that this could be achieved was by plural voting. giving those more educated more votes thereby ensurge that progress would be ensured by those more educated being in

control of the political process. as we know today, you don't necessarily need more votes, you just need the institutions, cultural institutions that can in some ways serve as essentially the functional equivalent of plural voting. the result of this transformation and move away from the tradition of the idea of mixed constitution, with its stress upon stability and order, and balance, toward one of transformation and constant change. a philosophy and a politics of progress was the creation of a new divide in our politics, and again, here you students of political philosophy will recognize this. the new divide in our politics becomes the party of order against the party of progress. those who call yourselves conservative, and one should understand this is the origins of what conservativism was. it was edward burke against the french revolution, it was

benjamin against what he saw was the revolutionary philosophy, bourgeoise commercial class as cultural revolutionary of his day. this was the beginning of conservativism that understood itself as bearing the tradition of this mixed constitution philosophy. the mixing of the elites and the ordinary people. for edmund burke, the combination of old aristocracy, the landed aristocracy with the conservativism of the many. if you read burke on the thoughts of the french revolution, what does he say, the aristocracy is especially responsible for preserving the way of life that's been developed organically from the bottom up, that there's a kind of responsibility of the elite to preserve the order of the society and this is the origins of the party of order or koift

r conservativism. they were opposing the party of progress, typically economic liberals. what most in the country called the liberal party and which we in some ways have failed to understand that this combination of the social and economic liberals really does constitute a single party. in the 20th century, and in significant part because of what louise began by saying, because of particular circumstances arising from the cold war, conservativism against russell kirk's desires, was transformed in a liberal direction. what was called liberalism, especially in the economic sphere, became redescribed as a kind of conservativism and we actually, it resulted in the kind of uni-party. a party that was consistently liberal, even though it fought against each other in its economic guise and economic

dimension what became known as conservatives, and social dimension, what came to be known as progressive. and this divide became the political divide and became the genuine choice we americans had every year. if you're like me, a catholic, doubtless you've had that experience in your life of saying, i don't know who to vote for because they're all problematic. and the reason, the fundamental reason they're all problematic because they really at the deepest level were representing a liberal philosophy, a philosophy of disorder. a philosophy of instability, an imbalance. in spite of the constant oscillation between these two liberal parties, one claiming to be economically conservative, ie liberal, and one claiming to be socially liberal, it was in fact the case it was a single project that unfolded consistently over time, constantly bringing more into being, the party of

progress as the sole party that governed this nation for at least the last 75 years. the economic side of this party-- of this divide recalled conservativism, but now i think increasingly liberalism and my friend shamelessly calls them neo liberals. this was initially the project of the right liberals, but of course became adopted and embraced over time by so-called progressives or left liberals. bill clinton and tony blair. this was the project of seeking to dismantle those conservative or stabilizing constraints upon the disorder that an unbridled economy can produce. the disordering that especially impacts those of the lower classes and the working classes. a world straddling market that was increasingly freed of any kind of limitations and obstacles, and so, at the risk

of being condemned in the way that kevin roberts was condemneded for a recent speech, this resulted in globalization. the globalization of the economy. the outsourcing of our industry, something again that senator vance knows all too well about. the financialization of our economy, the delinking of basic things like having a mortgage, which is all about having a home, delinking from places and turning it into a financial product that has left one's community and the opening, or let's just say the elimination of borders in any real sense, both in terms of products, as well as of course, labor. and here again, with the aim of producing especially cheap labor as well as cheap products. and at the same time, this project resulted in an ongoing form of cultural and social revolution. the ongoing liberalization of the social domain, the dismantling again of those stabilizing and conservative

aspects over the realm of our social lives, the lives that we live responsibly in and through our communities. the decline of what used to be known as decency laws and norms and customs, obscenity. i grew up in a world in which f-bombs were very rare and when someone said it you knew they were angry or it meant something and now it's just like a verbal tick, it doesn't even mean anything. indecency, pornography, nakedness, public displays, not just of affection of basically pornography, blasphemy, sexual, divorce, could he habitation, all of the limits dismantled. reproduction, the delinking of reproduction of sexuality from reproduction, birth control and abortion, the disassociation of

our sexuality from bringing new life into the world and new, now abortion be praised as a positive good, something one should celebrate. of course, marriage. an issue over which we have struggled as a culture, but, in fact, one which is actually in spite of the apparent importance of marriage in our national debates is actually ceasing to exist as reality. at the very time we're having debates, what is marriage, people are ceasing to be married. and we have all kinds of relationship. and i saw an article on the best cities to live in if you want to have a poly amorous relationships. and the line for a man or a woman and surgeries to make that line erased. and the economic and social

realm has dismantled any remnant of what was a kind of residual mixed constitution that existed in the american tradition and we should note and we should celebrate that this was our constitution, not necessarily our written constitution, though i don't think our written constitution contradicted this, but it was our practice. it is part of the american tradition. and this tradition that prized order and stability and balance was replaced over time by revolutionary disorder, one that prizes liberty as a kind of abstract ideal of simply free choice, disruption and the language of progress. once one understands this phenomenon in the light of i think, this long classical tradition, and the transformation that has underwent in the modern time, i think now we can more adequately understand what we've been seeing politically in the world in the last roughly decade.

what this seems to be a sudden outburst of inexplicable populism, is in act an inchoate and those of residually the party of order saying we need that in our lives and we need stability and balance and need it both in the economic realm and in the social realm. when the movement is described as a right wing movement and laugh and chuckle, and in favor of terrorists, and reindustrialization of america and helping working class people get good jobs, this is really right wing? this is what right wing is now, apparently. this largely inchoate, underrealized, from the bottom, for brexit and for trump, and policies by ron desantis in

florida and whole number of red state governors and many of the policies pursued by the most nefarious leader in the word, victor orban who wants to shore up families, notice what one sees as an effort to restore the party of order, which is is anathema to the people who wants to reign in supremacy and many are looking at the call to my book for january 6th, regime change to violently overthrow the government. i don't want to overthrow the government. i want something far more revolutionary than that. i want to overthrow the party of progress and restore a party of order that's actually the dominant party in our politics. that runs through both parties. that runs through both parties. whether that's now we divide

economically those who support an economics order or social order of order, and see we the deep connection between these two things and for me, this would be what constitute regime change. what would regime change look like in this form? a reimagining of constitution. not just take aristotle and apply it today, that's probably not a good idea. here is what i'm really glad to have these people to talk with tonight. i have a chapter in which i make various policy proposals and admit to you forthrightly i'm not a policy person, i can talk about aristotle until the cows come home, but let's break up washington d.c., and break up institution and send them out to washington, and send them out to the rustbelt towns where they could help your country. that may seem like a radical proposal if we push the

envelope a little bit. what would mixing begin to look like? what would a mixed constitution, the mix, the many and the few? placing less focus and emphasis on our elite colleges and universities and learning trades. people who could do things in our country. and asking people in elite colleges to learn a trade. what would be a better argument against what dominates our academic institutions than to require students how to wire a light, you know, a light fixture. you get it right or you get it wrong. there's no truth about this. [laughter] >> i call this the -- this proposal, i call it common good conservativism because it is about the effort to encourage

and to foster a party of order. by conservativism, i hope you all hear this, this is not the conservativism of your granddad perhaps or mother or father, perhaps. this is a conservativism even though aristotle didn't know the word, this is the conservativism of a tradition that regards a society aspiring to order and stability as that which has potential of constituting the conditions for true virtue. and true-- a truly good political order. i just want to close because an awful lot of people who read my last book said, well, you don't love america. you must hate america because you don't like liberalism and here i want to say in front of this really wonderful group of people, many of whom my former students might be wonder does deneen hate america, this is about recovering a deep part of our tradition and it's not necessarily a tradition you've been taught if you've been

taught that the american tradition was always and everywhere about liberalism. that itself was a product of the cold war and it served a particular function at that time, but it allied it, or hid or shrouded the kind of unwritten constitution ever america, how people live their lives. when-- i tokeville-- i can't end without tokeville. when he comes in the 1830's, marvels americans have combined the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion. these two things that in europe at that time didn't seem to go together and this is what he observes, he says in america, the law permits americans to do what they please. we can redefine what a man or woman is, we can redefine what a marriage is. the law is basically whatever the people says it is. he notices this, the law can have the potential of being limitless. he says the following, while

the law permits americans to do as they please, religion prevents them conceiving or commit what is rash and unjust. he goes on, nature and circumstances have made the inhabits of the united states bold. >> we are going to break away briefly from this book tv program to keep our over 40-year commitment to covering congress. as we take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate where lawmakers are holding what we believe will be a brief session. no votes are expected. ... the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., august 8, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray,

president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m., on friday, august 11, 2023. august 11, 2023. >> and that wraps up this brief session of the u.s. senate peer automakers are in a month long recess for the state or period fear they will be back septembee visits and phone spirit as always you can watch live coverage of u.s. senates here n c-span2. we now take you back -- our capacity to limit ourselves, our capacity to limit our temptation to be revolutionists in the american condition situation makes us susceptible to that and get the total observing the america of 1836, they succeeded in governing what is otherwise a constant temptation in front of the bear and i would say if we seek to conserve the american tradition is this a tradition we should look to be conserving. i thank you very much for your attention. [applause]

>> we are now going to our panelistsn come up on stage and we have a certain sequence for them so i think they know their seats we will have a defense here followed by christine emba, dr. robert and then patrick deneen at the end. [applause] >> so patrick's remarks were at a very high theoretical level, level that as the introduction suggested, were appropriate for the literate layperson as well as the academic specialist with its students or a professor. we have among uss today journalists, officeholders,

thought leaders, policy e exper a wide range of individuals who will help us to concretize and bring down to a level of implementation some of the ideas we've heard patrick discussed. although we also hear from all the panelists new theoretical perspectives as well and this picture of the practical and the theoretical is something that modern age is certainly aspires very much to reflect. at something isi as a whole tries to encourage among our students and faculty and friends and it's something i think will be a wonderful mixed regime itself here on our stage. so with that let me briefly introduce each of our panelists period immediately to my left at least only on stage that this very politically is the great senator j. d. vance represents the state of ohio and among other accomplishments is the author of the bestseller nobility elegy a memoir of the family and the culture in crisis

next to j. d. is christine emba, a columnist at the "washington post" and the author of the widely acclaimed and aptly titled rethinking sex, a provocation. next to christine with dr. kevin roberts the president of the heritage foundation trick he earned his phd in american history at the university of texas at austin and he is a host of the kevin roberts show which is of wonderful podcast. so two of other things were t into at the beginning of our discussion our first love this idea of mixture and some other divisions that we see in american society, and in secondly after that will move on to some thoughts about progress, what it means, what's good about it combat about it, and your particular perspective let me start by asking you, senator vance. you are someone who in political life has had to do with a mixture of the few and the many beer nephew who are deeply politically engaged, the few who mightbe be considered the political establishment for that

matter the senate itself is obviously a body of quite a fewe people, and also the miniature door dorsal who represents the great many of ohio. you are s someone who, in fact,i think for americans across the country is a voice of the many. how do you balance in practice and it sort of a combination of theory and practice the few and the many as officeholders come as a statesman? >> first, dan, thanks for doing this and thanks to all of you for being here, thanks to patrick of course writing a great book. i guess i think that things in american society are so tilted towards the few that i just worry about the many unlit rest of the figure itself out. i sortce of see my role and my voice is being explicitly antireligious, explicitlygi anti-regime, to the extent we can sort of elevate voices that been largely ignored that's the role i play i think that hopefully i can play a part in t that balance but that, i don't see myself as trying to concoct the balance myself ice myself as a corrective. one observation i wanted to make

on this question of mixture, think about this as patrick was speaking, we underwrite on the sword of the post-liberal right of the new right of oliver who want to defend what is this hodgepodge of people and ideologies that have collected themselves here today, i think that we are really, really kidding ourselves about the weight of the challenge. and when we talk about changing the regime which is, in fact, a word that i myself had used before, i agree with patrick at a think where to be clear right about a difficult district let me illustrate this with one particular issue. one of the hangovers really that hangovers from that sort of unit party patrick talked about is this idea that there is this extremely strong division between the public sector and private sector for the public sector there's the necessary evil of government. want to limit it as much as possible because to the extent we don't limit it it's going to do a lot of terrible things. thenfr you have the private secr sort of that which comes from spontaneous order, it's organic, it's veryt brechtian and we wat

to let people sort of do as much free exchange within that realm as possible. and the reality of politics as i've seen it l practice the way that lobbyist interact with the bureaucrats can interact with corporations, there is noth meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the american regime for its all fuse together. it is all melted together. it is all in my view very much aligned against people who have registered in state of ohio. i will give you a couple of examples. economic conservatives, what would what patrick would call liberals when i talk to these guys about, for example, why has corporate america so woke? i see in their eyes desperate desire to think that it's all coming from the scc, that there a couple of bad regulations at the fcc and that in fact larry fink would love to not be a super woke a driver of american enterprise that budweiser has no desire to put out a series of advertisement that alienate half of their customer base. they're just being forced to do it by evil bureaucrats.

and there is an element of truth to that. but the element of truth to that, that the regime is the and private sector, it's the corporate ceos. it's the h.r. professional is that budweiser? and they are working together against one another in a way destroys the american common good. that is the fact that we are with and that's something that i think we have to we have to be we have to be mindful of. the one final point that i'll make somewhat related your point, dan, but i just, you know, as was talking, i thought about this and i have the and no one's going to tell me to shut the hell up so i'll just go ahead and make this point. oh one just short of practical piece of guidance i'd give for for you know, to your point about practicality versus mindedness. and i'm the lowly very practical u.s. senator here on the stage is i would say that we should be extreme, be mindful to something patrick said about the real population that we're dealing with, not a sort of phantom or an abstraction or this this idea that they're somehow perfect and

that they're perfectly with our politics people are complicated. and let me just give you one example from the campaign trail. i think has heard me tell the story. i don't know that anybody in this room has. i was i was at a i was at a campaign event sort of three or four months before the election. it was after the primary. it was before the general election. and i was talking to probably a 45 year old black woman who up to me and told me she was pro-life, she was a democrat and i was the first republican she was going to vote for. and i remember at the time thinking this is the very sort of person that my very new right friends think that we need to be appealing to and the right about that, by the way but also think this is a natural for the republican party and i don't think they're necessarily about that. at least the republican party is it's currently constituted because what she told me was not about the fact that i was maybe more pro-labor than the average republican or i was more pro working class than the average republican. what she said and i quote speaking about my book is you've been hit in face and no other politician has.

that was why she was voting for me, not because of any high minded reason, but because she thought too many politicians were cowards. i'd been hit in the face and survived it. that's that's. that's who. that's who we're dealing with. and patrick's point, i think there's wisdom in that approach not just a sort of lack of sophistication i think a lot of people want to see in that woman the lack of sophistication. and i think it's important we see the wisdom. we see it with very clear eyes. so patrick and senator vance have both put a lot on the table and this will be truly a feast and we will continue to pile up higher the offerings as we go on to our next panelist christine emba. so, christine, in addition to, the few in the many in addition to some of the other divisions that patrick and j.d. have alluded to, there are also the question of how you get a mixed regime of men and women. and it seems that men and women have, you know, both among themselves also ideologically in terms of how we even define men and women today and what we see the roles as being there is a

great deal of confusion and anxiety and controversy so what do you think about mixed regime when you think about the few in the many and when you think about men and women, what of tensions do you see and what are your insights? how those tensions might be minimized or at least understood better and perhaps navigated? that is a fascinating. first of all, i. already warmed up. excellent. first of all, thank you for having me, patrick. thank you for letting me. be part of this first discussion. it's it is provocative book and i know having written a provocation myself. i found your work quite formative. actually, i reviewed. why liberalism failed in one of my first columns for the washington and the title of that column was liberalism is loneliness and ostensibly column

was not just about the problems of men and women, but it describes and reference your book and talking about how this regime liberalism, this individualism, every man or woman for himself has in the end left us all perhaps dependent on a state who is, in fact, not mate or a partner or dependent on a free market when the things that should have been ensured our communities, our families our romantic partners perhaps have failed. in the end, liberalism leaves us entirely alone and. i was thinking about that as i rethinking sex and talking to so young men and women and older and women to about the problem of loneliness which was even more a problem i than our current consent based, overly liberal sexual regime.

there is clearly and i think any young person in this room has felt it can talk it with their friends. the sense a breakdown that men and women you mentioned daniel don't know how to relate to each other it's what our roles are. it's unclear what is a man, what is a woman? what should we do? how do we what are the norms that would shape our coming together without them? we stray. we move further away. we away and when you talk about sort of the the difference between the many and the few, many research areas have noted this. the few. in fact, while promoting perhaps more liberal norms, norms that are suited to individuals, resources, indeed, elites who can experiment sexually, who don't need to have families or partners.

they make enough money to support themselves who can, in fact make it on their own. those are the people who actually end up living by norms, by the moral truths that were sometimes viewed as the property of the common person. but what's passed down to be, again, those trappings of individuation, these that elites can suffer, but that the many will not thrive then in following, i think when think about what a mixed constitution looks like when it comes to gender, when it comes to the sexes. i of an ideal of cooperation of the cooperation that so many are searching for and longing for. in fact, that seems to be missing in this moment. yes, norm, supporting family formation supporting healthy norms that suggest that, yes, you can grow something in the place that you're from. you don't have to leave and,

cross the country for opportunity and, leave everything you left behind. there's also an understanding of roles, perhaps. and when we talk about roles, i think in progress or more liberal spaces, which i tend to frequent, let's be honest, there's this idea that you'll be pushed into one you have to fit thing. there's no room dissent. there's no room for discovery. but i would suggest actually that in a mixture of the many, the few, there's a view of and a vision for more opportunity, not less there more places that you can fit you don't necessarily have to be a girl but striving to succeed. you don't necessarily have to be a guy who's hyper masculine, hyper macho and hopped up on pornography to get girls on tinder. there can be space everyone and

cooperation of class, both classes and genders. i do have one question actually. like any good journalist professor, i worry little bit when we talk about sort of regime change and a new elite, are we sure that we're not replacing again the old elite which is self-interested, a new one that is self interested in its own way? and then of course there is a question of sufferance for all its faults, the liberal ideal is that is actually very forgiving. people who are different for people who maybe don't, the norms and the mores of their their town of the assigned gender will or at least what are understood to be the trappings of their gender in the new

regime are people who differ on sufferance or are they actually included. often when we talk about relationships between, men and women, there is a focus on family formation. we strong families with a patriarchal and a mom who perhaps worked at home. they have kids. they do all of the normal things. what do we say to singles? what do we say to people who are gay, who are lgbt? what do we say for people who those norms don't quite fit? where do they go in this new regime? i'm excited for the possibilities that you talk about in this book. again, you might say that progressives would instantly push this away, but actually i think that there is a lot of room for agreement on questions of reforming the university so that the few come into contact with more people than just

themselves and increasingly arcane. these ideas, national service say teaching both men and women they belong not just to themselves but to their families and, to their nations, to their communities, to others and this idea of patchy, i think the old not drowning government in the bathtub but actually sort getting it out of the bathtub and telling it and, you know, feeding it up with a good vitamin so that it's fit for good use. i just want to make sure that these norms cordial that they suit. yes. both men, women, but also all. so. those are some excellent questions. we will have patrick respond to them after kevin roberts speaks. i was really very happy that christine broached cooperation and mentioned the way in which some of the divisions that the country has might in fact be

mitigated or together or overcome. so my question for kevin roberts is going in the other direction, however, because we also, of course, have conflict in this country, including conflict between conservatives and liberals. you're the leader of premiere conservative think tank in the united states, and yet you're well aware that know half of our country or, you know 40 to 50% of the public does seem to be liberal or, you know, leaning perhaps in a policy direction that may be different from what heritage has in mind. so you think about a mixed regime. how you think about heritage's mission, your mission as a leader in dealing with a country that is not altogether in support of the ideals that you cherish. great question. well, for record, i would still want to drown government. i know you expect to preserve the heritage foundation to say that, so i didn't want to disappoint you. not chuck. i mean that. i mean that as a working class

conservative grew up in circumstances unlike senate advances, as many you did. government is not the solution and. i actually believe in us to be argumentative dan, although you know i'm by sometimes can be 60% of the american people are with us on that and and and professor deneen you know i'm very grateful everything you've done i actually think in conversation thus far we have we've underestimate it the endurance and strength of an institutional outside d.c. ah community level conservatism that isn't just the new right, although we're glad for the new right. but that's conservative and. and so that leads me to answering your question, which i surely don't want to evade, because it's a very good one. the fragmented heck the conservative movement fragmented. and so what is what is heritage's approach been to

that? first and foremost, to do what we've always done, which is to be part of conversations like this to add and to multiply, not to condemn patrick deneen or christine, but certainly wouldn't condemn an advantage off to a great start in the in the senate we don't condemn period but to use our ears before we speak and and that leads to the second point which is tactical and and i'm resisting all the temptations to from this early historian to have a great conversation with my friend on early america had an level and i'll stick with the practical we have to acknowledge the emotion that the american people are feeling and whether they're left center or right. they feel that they've lost something. they feel that they've lost the american dream. they feel, in fact, to go back to the government, that government has not helped with that. and if you are a poor person who is in your twenties or thirties you're likely to be the third generation of the so-called

society, totally misnamed on poverty, all of that has accomplished is erode the dignity of work and to people who are dependent government. i don't mean that as a zombie reaganite, which i'm not. i mean that as someone who gives a -- about the human person. and i think pope paul the six had it right and humanity when he said when you start reducing human sexuality when you start reducing sex to just a physical act rather than to the bonds of friendship, romance, building families and community here you hear the berkman and kirkland coming out. you're going to have massive repercussions socially and governmentally. now, i know as a serious conservative catholic that we can't go out and lead into the left of center with humanity. but we do know that if we can sidestep the policy and political differences, we have and talk to people on a human

level, which is the loss that they felt. even though i might posit why they have felt that lost and we might disagree on on those reasons we get somewhere and and would say this if we weren't sitting here i'm i'm really grateful to j d vance for legislation like the railway safety. i'm not sure heritage is going to get there and being able to support it. i mean, and know that we may it may be qualified support. i'm using that as an example in his reaction, it proves the point, which is that we can have conversations about this and build not just a new conservative movement but hopefully a new country. this is where i think patrick is so right. and in his diagnosis that i would posit, dan, 90, 95% of the american people believe that we've lost something as a country and one of them is the ability to and speak civilly to air some differences of and so what heritage is trying to do

first with the conservative movement, maybe little bit into the center. and to the extent that we can left of center is to give the permission space to have those conversations so that by virtue those those discussions, maybe by revitalizing the mediating institutions of civil society, that we can have a better political because washington is totally broken and. yes, there has to be a tremendous exertion of political power. washington by, the people against the elites. you know, my comments yesterday morning in london at the national conference, draw that out learned even though i'm halfway educated that to use the term globalist that means that you're an anti-semite. who knew? but we have to stand against that and say you also not going to control our language. this is our country, our elected representative. reflect our virtue or our lack

thereof. and it is them who were problem. i'm still an old guy, dan, as you know, and believe that politics is downstream from culture. but growing up on the gulf coast, when we have hurricanes, the bayous and rivers flow backwards. so politics sometimes can culture. and i think it's really important and i'll sum up here or conclude at heritage, we understand we're not just waging policy and political fights, but also in a battle for the soul of american culture. so i have questions for patrick myself, but rather than lobbing those at him, i'd rather give him a chance to respond to the comments we've just heard from j.t. and christine, kevin. so first thing the first thing to acknowledge is that this is the first responses i'm getting to a book that i think maybe five people have read.

so for me, it's extremely interesting. yeah, i know exactly. so for me, it's extremely interesting to get this first feedback. and so this is genuinely un practice and in this sense is both exciting but also terrifying it might be surprise think c-span is recording it so it might surprise c-span viewers to to hear that the person with whom i have the strongest disagreement on the stage is the president of the heritage foundation. that is to say, in a notorious conservative like me, finds the idea drowning government to be absolutely an absurd and frankly dangerous idea. and not only as a not only as a catholic do i say that, but also as as a conservative or as a certain kind of conservative. i mean, you've already you know, one of those reasons, which is that i'd have a have a society in which we have certain standards governing transportation and food and drugs and airlines. and so forth, rather than one in which those didn't exist. i think we would agree to that

to a degree. but but more than that, or even beyond those seemingly more obvious. and i think these actually are reflection of some things you said in london which is that we have a society and we maybe would debate over the of that, but we have a society increasingly has titanic forms of private globalized forms of private corporate quasi corporate power massive private institutions that cannot be adequately governed or, redressed at fairly local civil society will suffice. state governments, you know, if you like a company like walt disney, which has a valuable piece of real estate in state, you might be able to do something with them if you're a governor. but try that apple or with amazon this gets awfully difficult to do on a kind of local level. now, catholics, we both understand the principle of

subsidiarity and for many years catholics, conservative catholics have really focused on the way that subsidy or any place is a focus on the local that the lower the the issues or challenges we face should be redressed at the most local level because where people have the most knowledge and local knowledge, the most affection and care for those issues, but this is teaching also directs us to understand that they're going to be issues that have to be dealt with at a higher level. we're going to need a senator, us senator to talk about national railroad safety standards. we're going to need national institutions to redress this. but it's especially these forms of private power. i live in the state of indiana i'm not a midwesterner, so maybe it's even more revealing that i went to the midwest rather than stayed on the coast in the swamp where i used to teach at georgetown, that in the state of indiana in 2015, in the effort to pass the religious

restoration act at the state level was the threat of economic destruction by companies like apple and eli lilly and the ncaa. a not even a not even a corporation that in a sense, forced indiana to reverse what was a legitimate piece of democratic legislation duly by the state legislature of a sovereign state of indiana and signed into law by then governor mike pence. and i hear none of my colleagues who constantly talk, endlessly about the threats to democracy faced by contemporary america when speaking of january six, have a peep say about the role that these private corporations played in, overturning a piece of state legislation. this is where i would say i don't want government to be around. i want government to do something in those kinds of situations. it needs to actually get out of the water, get out of the bath and do something and protect protect the citizens of that state. nor do i want the government

doing everything in our lives. of course not. but this is where i think we need adequate prudence in judgment to determine where the right level of government should apply. the solomon in my metaphor, i want to waterboard government. that may actually more controversial reaction than i hope so. the senator that alluded to it is i thought this this actually allows me to just make one one maybe slightly awkward transition to a topic that i actually talk a good deal about in the book, which is the rise of wokeism and the woke corporations and something that senator talked about and here i think what we what way in which i think lots of people attempting to explain this. i think in london a lot of people are talking about cultural marxism as as the source of the rise of wokeism.

and i, i find this explanation to be absolutely implausible at some level. i think when you see that a essentially, especially the trajectory of the liberal order of, a basically disordered progress, what we're seeing is the genuine wedding, the the the realization of the combination of the of the sort of, let's say, progressive interests of, capital and the progressive interests of the social revolutionaries and. they found this way to marry themselves to each other, as it were, with in and through wokeness. so and it's noticed that it's taking place at a particular time and it's taking place at a moment when the the visible inequality and the condition that christine described of in which ordinary people are really now essentially almost rendered. of of of achieving those based

goods of life, whether it's marriage family, owning a home, having these of having a decent job, maybe your has an even better job than might or goes to a better school than you might. that kind of american dream seems to be away for these people. and notice at the very moment when that became clearly visible what happened the elite institutions, whether it was corporate actions, private entities and in my world the universities become most egalitarian institutions. in the world. you have the president of harvard university eliminating social clubs on the basis that they foster an egalitarian spirit in harvard which as admissions rate of about 4%. this is kind of you know notice this is a it's it's a it's a form of sort of class warfare as it were, that wokeism is a way in which elites in our society are using the language and appearance of egalitarian in an effort to shroud fact that they

have to act. they are in the process of essentially using these institutions to govern in ways constitute a kind of tyranny of progress and to actually dismiss this the complaints concerns and anxieties of those who are not in those institutions saying you're backwards, you have you have no standing in our to make these complaints. you representatives of all the various that we in these institutions are represented the opposite of so among the things that i attempt to do in this book is to offer an explanation for the the rise of wokeness as a form of explanation precisely of how the party or the the kind of the despotism of progress is now using this marriage of sort of a revolutionary economic and a revolutionary social. set of commitments to advance its interests. it's doing what, in a sense, every corrupt ruling classes

ever done, which is to attempt keep itself in power by whatever means necessary. and this leads and lastly to christine's very good challenging questions, which is what prevents a successor class, the regime change, from being self-interested and it's for good reason that figures throughout this tradition that i'm mentioning are not sanguine about it always or even often working that the interests of, the many and the interests of few are likely not to be ultimately reconcile, but that we ought to at least to make them more reconcilable. and at least the argument in my book is that the replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interests of ordinary people. how do we measure that? we measure that by basic sort of measures of sort social and human health. the things that you were are we connecting. are we forming communities,

whether in the form of families? are people able to have children and raise children? are they to live in communities that are healthy healthy and literally in the sense of not having trains, you know, train wrecks and chemical spills in their towns, their backyards, but also healthy in a social sense. and what we know is the following the poorer you are in this, the more you are a member of the working class. if you're not living in washington dc and all likelihood the worse it is going for you. life expectancy is dropping for the first time that we know in american history in these parts of the country. and this ought to be the topic of conversation foremost on the lips. people who are working in institutions like mine at an elite university, and yet you never hear it discussed. it's a topic that just doesn't reach the concerns of the contemporary elite. so we would we would have to think about the formation of an elite the formation of a new ruling class that has it as its primary object and aim to make

what used to be a public utility, the public utility of being able to live a good life, even if you weren't even if you didn't have the right degree to, make that back into a public utility. and here i think we're going to need the help of the private sector. we're going to need the help of the civic. and, yes, we're going to need the help of government. but i think that this is that this should be, in a sense, the the task and the role. if this is regime change, this is the task in the role of a new elite that hope would be a reflection of a genuinely and and sort a salutary form of a mixed regime, mixed. so we're going to go into a few minutes of overtime since we have very good conversation going here, we will try to fit in one or two questions from the audience the end. so do give some thought to that. but let me turn to a second theme that came through in patrick's remarks. the theme of progress and senator events. it as if for many of the elite progress in america to them

actually leaving behind a great many americans. and you've written powerfully about this in your own books. you've written that you have you spoken about this on the campaign trail. and as a senator, how do you how do you bring the right kind of progress to ohio and to america as opposed to the invidious and divisive of progress that patrick has been discussing? well, i it is a very complicated question, course, but i think one part of the solution goes to something patrick said in his opening remarks, which is that if you look at you know, most americans just want a better life and materially that's a big part of it. i think cooperation between, the sexes. it's just interesting, christine, the entire time she was talking, i'm reminded that every time i go and talk to a young group of conservatives in a college campus and the cameras are off and, it's a small group. they will eventually talking about how terrible dating is and how miserable, seemingly the men and the women are, though each of their unique ways. and it is. so obviously that's an important component of it but if you look

so for example one measure i think of globalized is how many of the profits are launder through the financial sector in american economy. so if you go back to 27, 28, about 25% of corporate profits, right before the financial crisis were going through financial sector. we think about that right. if you're fundamentally taking assets, offloading to east asia or to central america, that requires a much more robust financial sector than lending money to your sort of neighbor down the street. and so i think it's telling that sort of the peak of globalization, which i hopefully think was 28. you had this massive, massive concentration of corporate sector profits in the financial sector, and you don't have nearly as much productivity growth. and this is one area where, you know, we all sort of, you know, patrick and wendell berry make me really worried about material progress. it has its downsides. i'm fundamental. i'm a believer in higher productivity, higher standards of living. and i think that that's though it's somewhat complicated with social contract and a social

fabric that's still fundamentally stable. but what we have in in modern american economy, unfortunately, is. way, way too much of the so-called economic activity in financial rents, in globalized fashion in seconds free and tertiary financial products that have nothing to do with the underlying real economy. and so i think part of the answer is to actually invest capital in, real productive enterprises in our own country. that's the sort of thing that produces rising of living that i think is compatible with with a solid social fabric, but how to get there, of course, is a very complicated story. but i think that you need to make fundamentally you need to it much more profitable to invest in the united states of america and much less profitable invest overseas. so, christine, many people would say that the sexual. is one of the key forms of progress that we have experienced in the last or so. everything from changes in terms of the roles of the sexes work,

the fact that many more women work, for example, now than had done so a century ago, the fact that people are making a wider variety of choices sexually than before. these forms progress are celebrated by not only many left wing and progressive institutions, but millions of americans seems to have bought into the idea of the sexual revolution as a triumph progress as well. i think your book is very interesting because you complicate picture in what ways is the sexual revolution, not a triumph of progress or perhaps a progress that may be, again, perhaps is leaving behind people in ways that may be overlooked by the sort of celebratory publicity that the sexual revolution often gets. another great one. i, i think that first we have to really think about progress means. and i think that there are actually a couple different definitions of progress sort of floating around that patrick

actually does good work and sort of dividing out in his book. there is what could describe as a liberal ideal of progress in progress simply means moving forward. new a transcendence of the self progress is transcending human limitations and human knowledge to find better knowledge, we're moving, we're breaking things and we're sending to a higher that's progress. or is it progress? i'm not necessarily sure. there is certainly an ideal of learning more of having more understanding, a scientific understanding of the human person say better tools to move about, to connect with each other, to determine the course of our lives in some way. have tools that contribute, frankly to our mental and physical health. but when comes to the sexual revolution, one also has to ask is the progress just this idea of moving into a new thing?

we don't know. the new thing is, but it's better than the old thing or progress in a different sense, which is improving the lot of the human person, actual movement towards flourishing towards inclusion, not away from it and, under those lights in that definition of progress, you can see where the sexual revolution has in some ways gone off the rails i mean, i'll say first that, you know, i do identify as a feminist. and i think that the original feminists had a very clear goal in mind. they wanted women to be respected and treated equally in society, seen as equal human beings to men, to have the same freedoms that men did. that was a goal. that was an important one. we're still working towards that goal. actually. but i do think you can see

moments in which sexual revolution, the feminist movement were co-opted by a sort, a different revolution, a revolution of this this first sort of technocratic ideal of progress where it wasn't so much equality, want men and women to flourish and become a kinder and gentler people together, but well, we won't experiment. we want to try experiments in living. we want to have as much opportunity, to have as much sex as possible, to try out new attitude, new performances, to escape consequences through technology, through the removal of norms that protected the majority of people in the past and well, the outcome is what we have today. the crowds of young people surrounding after his talks complaining the dating scene. and of course as discussed before the loneliness the lack of relationship the pain that so

many people see see. i think that we need to be focusing more on a progress that is actually human progress towards a goal, a progress, the good towards flourishing, towards a better society, not just progress for progress sake or, progress for, economic sake. so the idea, the sexual revolution as freeing women to work more, freeing men to work more and have more casual sex in their free time when they're not working. i don't think that that's i i also want to note that these definitions of progress are often confused in criticisms. wokeness. i that wokeness or the phrase the word woke especially it's just used too often as a boogeyman to sort of cast a pall over some actually very

important things. i even activists and in spaces for people of color for women complain about their movements being co-opted by capital but movements for progress use the progress of women being respected as much as progress that looks like black people being seen as equal to white people. those are actually important. they aren't just wokeness they aren't just critical race which is maligned but mainly misunderstood. they actually do mean something it's fair to criticize when they're used by elites to turn attention away from misdeeds, but it is actually wrong to ignore the real the human progress that is being made at this point. so because so i'm 38 years old,

we have three kids under the age of six and we have a lot of young women with families, sort of our peer group. and something i've seen multiple, multiple times with well-educated women who are very oriented and focused on their career is they'll have and they want some period where they can step back a little bit from their career and focus on their families and. the incredible and immense social pressure applied to those women for just to take maybe six months off from work and spend time with a new is incredible and idea that that's progress that this is somehow liberating. i mean if you think if you bought into an idea that it's liberate to leave an eight week old baby to go work 90 hours a week at goldman sachs, you've been had and i think all of us have been had a little bit by that idea idea. that perfectly tees up what i wanted to ask kevin roberts, which is you you're the leader

of a conservative think tank, a conservative policy shop, and yet there are must be of progress that heritage itself like to embrace. how do you sort of separate what is virtuous and good about progress, including some of the points that christine brought up from of the way in which progress has lately become a sort of deliberate move away from everything traditional about america. what's the right balance to strike another great dan and not to not all to be flippant it's just going to be succinct. progress is exemplified by increasing the dignity of the human person. the example that jody just mentioned for new moms or moms to be struggling with that, that would be an example. and i think where where patrick is is so right has been bright for years is reminding conservatives of any stripe that, whether in politics or policy or, culture, society writ

large what we need to be focused is the human person and on the community, the those are some the eternal things that can serve citizens has always been about at least since burke. and there's a long tradition in american history through the post-cold era up to this day that maybe not as ascendant as it once was, although i think it might be now. all that to say, heritage, we also believe that in order to create the space in which individuals, communities as new institutions reformed institution can help further progress, can help improve the dignity of the human person that we do have to get government out of the way, all just and all jousting aside, whatever metaphor we want to use with the bathtub. i'm a conservative, a libertarian, heritage's a conservative.

no modifier in front of it. i think it's redundant to say common good conservatism because conservatism is about the common good. but i don't mean that to a gratuitous criticism of patrick as a very for what you're doing. and you know that, is to say this, we also have to step out of theory, philosophy, and we have to be zealously focused on, putting a dagger in the heart of the thing that stands in the way of the dignity of the human person. and that's american administrative state. that's what's got to be drowned. and so. at 12:01 p.m., january 20th, 2025, when we have a conservative president, whoever he or she is, heritage has no dog in that fight. many very beautiful dogs. very. are they in the bathtub? cc christine to those of you with the most beautiful, that

person we hope will as they're taking the oath of office, be grateful to this republic, be grateful to a conservative movement, not just heritage i don't want heritage to take credit for this, although we played a role in it at providing the best, most comprehensive presidential transition project that is focused on what not just diminishing the scope and size of the administrative state, which exemplifies the what what patrick j.d. have said. it's that that's the means to the it's about that's the e means to the end, the end is self-governance and that's what is standing in the way. i'm just hopeful, and i will conclude on this because i know you're looking at your watch, they dan, wherever we are, whatever tribe we are in, center-right, the american solidarity party, the republican party, the democratic party, feminists, whatever tribe you are, in fact, you realize we still have time

to take back this country. please, wherever you are, whatever books you like, what do you you like heritage or not, whether you want to water board or ground government, do not despair it's just we have to be busy about all of these things we're talking about. >> before i try target paa last question for myself i want to look our isi folk with microphones to be on standby because we will take a question or two from the audience when we conclude. patrick,em i wanted to turn back to you not just on the theme of progress but this idea of a mixed regime.ll one of thebr things that makes alexis de tocqueville so brilliant is the fact that he is living after a revolutionary age. francis had a revolution -- france. you had a restoration of monarchy. there are some forces in restored france that want the monarchy to be much stronger, wanted to be as powerful as had

been under louis xiv for example, and/or others in the restored monarchy which de tocqueville is living in want of a second french revolution. you have military folks who perhaps want a napoleon bonaparte or his air rather napoleon the third to come to power pick one of the things that makes de tocqueville breed is the mixture of old and new, revolutionary, post revolutionary and prerevolutionary. my question for you is america has had a cultural revolution it seems. america has experienced these little transformations. is it the case that what you envision is a return to an earlier prerevolutionary condition, or what they post revolutionary condition, one that has to come by some of thei aspects of the liberal order you've described with the mixed regime you want to bring about? >> so the subtitle of the book is told they post liberal future. that phrase or word is chosen

with some care and forethought,. which is that it's not simplywe going -- it's not going back there it's not an effort to say in order to restore a better america, we have to go back to 1950 or 1980, or i'm not sure what the period would be in early american history that we would point to. >> it would be improbable for me to answer that. >> in other words, there is no going back. time doesn't work that way. but also we've lived through this liberal revolution. christine points out aspects of it that i think certainly as a catholic and as a human being i would regard as good. you read the treatment, obviously the treatment of african slaves in this country and then the treatment in the jim crow world. maybe there areth people who wat to go back. i genuinely hope that whether you describe yourself as a conservative or as a liberal or

progressive this is not what's wanted. there's a wanted to go back to that kind of condition i certainly don't. and here i would credit whether we describe it as liberalism, whether we described as a kind of the realization of a more fully christian understanding of the ideal of human dignity. there is certainly in my view there ought not to be any going back. but we should also note, christine, your comments really do point to this, is that often these genuineow achievements in the american political, cultural, social order are framed in terms of this kind revolutionary depiction. it's framed in terms of and overthrowing of all that previously existed, that it is a part of a recidivist worldview, all of which has to be overcome and transcended.

so when i'm speaking especially critically of progress i'm speaking of the kind of ideology of progress regards the past, regard to that which preceded us as a kind of blighted time, a time of darkness and ignorance, superstition, the kind of, the black myth as it is sometimes described.d. it's described as a kind of like legend i think it is described, as a kind of ignorance. i think this ideology of progress is precisely what, among other things, de tocqueville feared would become dominant in america, which is that would make us in many ways ignorant of what the future actually might hold. in other words, the ability to have a kind of much more predigital understanding of how it is where to act in the world, where when using certain features of the government or the private sector and so forth

require us to bring to bear all of the knowledge of the past that history without in some ways be dominated by it. not to be a nostalgic. but at the same time not to be an ideological progressive who simply sees the past as a kind of simply needs to be overturned and overcome. support of the book and at the end of the book i talked about the need in some ways this post liberal future will be one in which we so together time. this sounds awfully l philosophical. we so together time but it's with a very practical purpose, that we have the ability to understand the goods of the past as well as the pads of the past, a genuine ability to see at the excess of those things in order that we can live responsibly into the future. theys ideology of progress in my ways relieves us of responsibility of living responsibility, living responsibly into the future, thoughtfully into the futureur

because the future will take care of itself, or a phrase one often hears, you can't stand in the way of progress. in other words, it u renders us incapable, weak, and just sort of just simply makes us powerless in the face of what are supposedly inevitabilities. and in the interest of what kind of genuine human freedom, we have to have the capacity to say, certain things we might regard as a change or transformation are going to be good. precisely, transhumanism, the good. or driverless trucks, the good that we want. are there simply things that are simply going to be inevitable or do have the capacity to exercise judgment? here i think progress functions as a kind ideology that makes it difficult for us as a civilization to deliberate these kinds of questions. >> one good that everyone want is a copy of patrick's book which is goaded onto after the

event. let's take a question from the audience. we will go over there on the edge. and please keep the questions brief so thatwe we can get one r two in. just. >> thank you to the panelists and especially professor come here been instrumental in my philosophical development throughout the speech you sort of painted liberalism as a philosophy of instability, as sort of corrosive on social, healthy social forms. t on the other hand, i think rawls in his later work use liberalism as sort of stability and missed, advanced entrant amidst pluralism. ms. boebert, the stable bulwark against a sort of a threat of chaos if a particular partisan vision of the good work to take hold in society.ch

especially american society. so what do you make of this challenge of pluralism, and how does your post liberalism or common good conservatism as sort of answering this challenge to provide a stable future? >> i know we have been very patient so i'll just be very brief. since you indicate you've read some of the previous work, i would simply point you to the last book, why liberalism failed, which is really the effort to show that the claim we can have a kind of neutral or contentless liberal society was always basically a myth and even a lie of course it has a content and we're seeing that content sorted visibly before us. it's a kind of enforced indifferentism at some level which is your report not to care your required to have no judgment and if you have judgment if you think something is right or wrong, you are no longer to be permitted in polite conversation. so what has actually accounted

and that content becomes dominant. and its activity comes the basis of the form of the regime. so we are in a situation which is not a debate between contentless neutrality and conceptions of the good that we have debate over. we are in a situation where if the debate over conceptions of the good i'd rather be in that debate and, frankly, rather have conservatives however we describe ourselves in that debate and not simply say well, we just want to live in a neutral society in which there is basically fundamentally ann agreement that we just disagree. >> let me give christie and then kevin an opportunity for a last word either in response to that question in response to other thoughts that occurred during tonights discussion. >> i'll leave that up to you, wrapped. >> i would say ladies first that's just the southern gentleman in the. .. clock christine. i'll say two things. the first is the heart of the conservative of is gratitude. and i'm grateful to patrick

deneen for his career, for his work, for his book. i read on the plane back from london last night and i enjoyed we have a thousand times more things we agree on than we have differences of opinion on most grateful for how you mentor your students. you what professors be and you're a friend of the heritage foundation. we have differences of opinion, but that's okay. the second thing is i just in heart i would say this even if i were not the president, heritage foundati even if our not president of the heritage foundation or to this. need to type to the american public. my take away personally is to talk tohe the republic and new machine if that's your preferred language but please consider working in the next

administration. i mean that because if we don't, giving to church and so society and nonprofit, don't get me wrong, one of the great lessons always champion, we are in era of meeting to impose political and one way is a cheerful way part of administrative state as a result of what you are doing. product 2025. >> i think i was say between liberalism and total chaos, one of the most interesting things is the description in which are

common sense can contain some wisdom. liberalism is directly in contrast to the so that is the question. one thing to be mentioned, idea of constitution and post- liberal future, it is important. we spent a lot of time talking about how they reform themselves and better ideas and talking to a professor and a think tank

university. >> maybe as a result of this book i might. [laughter] >> it's easyms enough to gathern rooms like these and think about how we should think of the world and make it better and have discussions here. mixed constitution means living out in the world from catholic university to the recession and 14th street but interacting with the people, we are seeing the people as valuable. actual members wishing to share who wear are in community with.

his a feeling to come up with a solution to get the people who are experiencing this, help theset. people alter and come up with a good idea. that is one of the most important things to remember as we talk about to reform the regime and it is inclusive in a real way. >> i'm grateful to our panel as an audience and grateful johnny. >> thank you. get a copy of his book and on the back of your program you will see a qr code and

homecoming we can, two and a half weeks from today in our beautiful 20-acre campus and we have a great time not just panels. the jazz band, oysters and a fun time of community and friendship and great speakers including lee edward, h.w. brand and will explore the question of the great statesman, artist and creators so sign up if you're under 30, it's only $50 an hour and ten minute training. thanks again. [applause] ♪♪

>> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual piece. every saturday, american street tv documents american stories and sunday, but tv brings the latest nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and for including charter communications. ♪♪ >> charter communications along with these problems and companies support c-span2 as a public service. ♪♪

♪♪ c-span.org. c-span, unfiltered view of politics. ♪♪ it looks like this. american people see democracy at work. ♪♪ c-span power by cable. his work school