a reminder you can watch all of our congressional coverage on c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪♪ >> book tv celebrates 25 years of presenting nonfiction books and authors. >> twenty-second year in a row, book tv is live with the library of congress national book festival. >> since 2001, book tv in partnership congress provided signature in-depth uninterrupted coverage of the national book festival featuring hundreds of nonfiction authors again. watch saturday at book tv once again brings coverage of national book festival. library of congress on his book, i have something to tell you for young adults and former nfl player also, author of the yard between us. complete national book festival schedule online at book tv to

org. library of congress festival live saturday 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> it doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work and truly informed. straight from the sources c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. the opinion that matters the most, this is what democracy looks like. >> good evening and welcome, excited for you to be here. regime change, this is part of a new initiative i advised to the

forefront in d.c. and the country. i look forward to many more evenings with you. i want to share the history of modern age in case you aren't familiar. in 1951, circulate a perspective of investors in the midwest and target leadership was professors, clergyman, men in government and reflective people walks of life who preserve equilibrium of life so i will leave it to you whether your the industry and the powerful men of government or scare people preserve and develop but what it is amusing, it's a fundamental

statement about the dignity of ordinaryus people preserving the equilibrium of society of the populace c and they do care abot the most important things. whether the principles would animate modern age, it's amazing how well it's held up. he says the journal should have approached just favor of religion, scripture just, liberty under law and ancestors mailing thought in society but not afraid to address the problems of our age. this would be national, even international but ought to be a profound middle western sensibility. americans cannot afford to relinquish control to a small circle of two to three cities who cannot truly claim for the whole nation. dan mccarthy is in alexandria so

to some extent he is. a creature of this but i think is better than most, is not the best in terms of understanding inputs of the common good he has frome midwest and a beautiful wy bringing together these constituencies trying to order conservatism and hopefully america in the managing editor on website and big party for the end of the exciting things have the liberty of sharing this evening but those will come down the pike and the topic of tonight's event patrick has been a friend of mine for over five years but one the great

political philosophers and i was dismayed when i was sent a legal copy of his new book because i knew for the next week i wouldn't be able to sleep and i would have to read the book and i would be honoring the publication and restoring purchased in the solidarity. the philosopher to address this evening and the group of panelists respond. we have kevin roberts and christine so you all for being here and i would like to welcome my colleague, dan mccarthy. [applause]

>> the editor of modern age and from originally thei midwest intellectually speaking, target rich environment. the intellectual, get the wrong idea but there is plenty of injustice and it is combated written about. i am honored to introduce tonight sponsors. woman of many achievements and the chairman for 2,042,009 and the cultural organization. the president of the diplomacy

foundation would be honored to have.' but do not think you, dan. great honor and pleasure to be with you all this evening but before i say anything else, i want to congratulate you on the extraordinary job you're doing. [applause] i don't want to dump their. i want to congratulate you on this incredible job you're doing, it is a pleasure to be under your leadership. [applause] there are certain words or combination of words that invoke

instant recognition of what they stand for. when i was at unesco, two words fall into that category were marshall plan, ambassadors from struggling countries all over the world insist they need a marshall plan. few of them knew any detail about the plan, the didn't know how it worked a lot, they only knew it played an important role in having countries they were convinced that help those countriess achieve as well. this evening the two words most relevant are those of us at a certain age knowth exactly what those words mean. he lived through them those years but what about those of you born after 1990? after the infamous wall came down, after winners were

reopenedft after the iron curtan was lifted. what do the words cold war mean to you? it is not involve direct action and primarily through economic and political action, for the circuits. thee, overthrown on the government but national borders and religious institutions everywhere.

the occupation the construction of public regime is in diversion even in the heart of the free world, the cold war did not turn into world war iii. it's a diplomacy. we were not promoting revolutionary ideology. we were promoting freedom. our allies were the pillars of the civilization if not to

communism. instead of liberalism the comprehensive promotion to revolution everywhere beginning at home. in the ideology in our own institution and those of you who participate in these activities know what thees culture war has done colleges and universities. the result often disastrous, economically, strategically, diplomatically and culturally and they have been disastrous.

americans waged war for decades without enduring success cold war is a battlefield at the same time communism is the workings america to recover what lost. in terms of people on the revolutionary will. this restores our country and restore peace and stability

around the world. please join me in welcoming the american diplomacy modern age english pillows. this is the author of many books including liberalism and regime change. with that, we will bring a patrick. [applause]

>> remarkable comments and thank you all of you who are here tonight were you are not swimming today. the weather i remember all too well. i am honored together here by the heritage foundation and the washington post would be remiss to say i wasn't honored by this significant presence of several generations of students. as a teacher and someone for the end of my career this is what gives me hope and numbers of students seem wanting to the worldan and i want to thank you all from notre dame days, you you are and i'm grateful so we

are all aware of the dynamics of the current political divide not only in the united states and around thean world but we have seen and has been discussed is the rise of the political dynamic in the west various forms of the election of dollars from various movements around the world and recent election in philly resulting prime minister, the rise of populism and the rise of this in our world one thing that struck me about this phenomena is how many people really knew something to get our heads around because of how distinct sudden and incomprehensible this is but as

someone who teaches history of political thought and spend a lot of time reading greek and roman and latin and the frog tradition philosophy, it doesn't seem remotely surprising. what surprises me is there is a time in the history of the world we felt this was not a major and fundamental division of politics. we read the works of plato and aristotle, aristotle in particular stakeout right out political, over political orders are divided tween the few and will political and into everywhere it seems to be truth and what is empirical medical science and the contemporary

greeks of his days will will will. the market will will and oligarchy, the regime of the many and the regime of the few. there's so you can remember back to your introduction, aristotle regarded reflecting the kind of life regarded as good, except w the reason, there will be many andd oligarchy regimes. these inin order to. they have a certain kind of party, the party of the many or the party of the few. because of this, and horrible

said because of this regime, were always constituted to favor some number and limited number ofty people based upon this clas indictment they were to link the trajectories and these were likely to be one upon the other. in the pursuit of the interest of the parties that governed the other party would rise up and presume power in the other result was tierney but here is an ancient, super and repeated over and over every destined for or tierney and if you read the

columns, these are two with the. america is in the midst of a new war being the linden tyrannical session. neither pre-and copyright to address the politics you may have a good king or aristocracy, hard to find but most regimes allow you to create a mixed regime. liz: is of the many and a few is one of interesting discussion and virtues people have been the

focus of the likely to benefit from vintage of being a part of the future. those who have riches of the oligarchs, and constant, you have quite the selection of restaurant as many oligarchs if you we have in the department of transportation. [laughter] the oligarchs of the few education, refinement and high culture, rightly admired in the oligarchs and i'm glad that it exists even if i'm not likely to

buy it for 30 million. the people, looking at you, j.d., respect certain kinds of virtues. the work of hands, fix their own cars and plant their own crops and you have to have a budget. and there are people who did and they have memory people of piety. they have been beyond themselves

that these parties have certain vices. if you find it easier to dominate the many they can control the media and the financial system and the educational institutions.ti they have the ability to live separate and far nicer places and many also have their vices and they are course and can become degraded and they can be attracted to demagogues and manipulated by demagogues. a whole series of fingers take

elements of these groups found in nearly every political a ord, except in the hopes and contention virtues of each side would counteract and cancel out vices and would have the result of creating good order is because of the virtues and became vices, it wasn't checks balances, it is aspiration to a certain virtue that achieves moderation, and mixing of extremes. one of the hallmarks was to create such a constitution with difficulty regime difficult but once realized or to the extent it was realized, is required order and stability and

literally a kind of balance when it woulde be a source of danger ulsochi regime with the instability, rapid change, imbalance and transformation. for as long as possible then one has such a regime, one should seek to continue the time retaining developed and walk with the plank in your head or something, you don't run, you walk. a certain amount of care keeping it balanced as you move forward. in the book i make the following argument and i've been thinking about this, as it relates to contemporary policies, there is a way in which the modern world, modern age, i don't think russell kirk either, part of

what constitutes described in many ways, to reject this ancient ideal of what might be the resolution of divide between the many and the few. two replace it with what we describe as politics progress, politics of change, often rapid change, transformation that rather than seeking order and continuation, the modern solution to this problem of divide between million the future was to promote a society that would engage in constant and maybe constantly increase change transformation. liberals will return the signed new regime favor to see who bear

responsibility of rapid is increasingly rapid change is the earliest especially those who argue that in the language even protected from posed by the many with change in transformation of the room and resentment from the inequality. and it's naturally found in marxism and who wants to promote the revolution suspect populism when it becomes prosperous and the rise of the classical we

shouldn't be surprised in the contemporary world in politics, those we classify as classical rules have become never trump or anti-ul populist. classical liberal who would call himself liberal but especially hates the way in which promotion of the views of many pose a threat to the theory of dynamic constantly transforming economic progress. classical liberals in the theory of how elites are the guiding force and develop constitutional order that restrains the ability of the many. this is no less true and what we describe as progressive liberals born out of and typically toward the many more than perhaps sufficient right immigration and

distinct dissension and because of the instinctive conservatism, tendency to be governed by despotism and society will become a more progressive cost transformation and change and depending of traditional ways of doingng things. one need to liberate individuals in society. praises for individuality to release what he regards as human orientation for those who are progressive and central form. to achieve this famous argument

of liberating these individuals from the constraints of tradition and liberating them from the threat of democracy acting as a restraint upon progress of tidy. one of the ways he argued this was plural voting getting those were educated more votes ensuring this would ensure by those who are more educated being in control of the political process and you don't necessarily vote, he just need institutions that can serve as the functional equivalent. the result of this transformation and move from the tradition of the idea makes constitution with disability and order and balance of

transformation and constantt change, a philosophy and politics of progress was the creation of new demise. this becomes party of order against the party of progress.ti if you don'tun call yourself conservative, once you understand origin of what conservatism wants, as inferred against this french revolution foods a revolutionary philosophy, a combination of commercial collapse as well as cultural revolutionary of the day. this is the beginningss of conservative it's understood itself as bearing tradition of this philosophy and mixing of the 80s and ordinary people.

for edmund burke the old aristocracy instinctive conservatism of the many.y. often the considerations of the french revolution the aristocracy is especially responsible for preserving the way of life organically from the bottom up and preserve the order of society as well as conservatism and the party of progress typically a combination economic and social liberals. what most countries in the world call liberals and and failed to understand this combination of social and economic liberals really does constitute a single party. in the 20th century a significantec part because of

particular circumstances arising from the cold war conservatism against russell kirk's desires was transformed in a direction that was called liberalism especially in the economics era described as. conservatism. we resulted in this party that was consistently liberal even though it fought against each other against economic dimension of became known as conservatives progressive. this divide became for us political divide the openly political trace we have. use it i don't know who to vote for because they are all automatic and the fundamental

reason is because the deepest level and will representing this philosophy of disorder, a philosophy instability. in spite of the constellation between these two liberal parties, onees claiming economically conservative and one socially liberal, it was a single product that unfolded consistently over time constantly bringing more to the party of progress as the sole party to govern this nation. thehi economic side of this dive called neoliberalism and calls them neoliberal became adopted

and appraised over time. rothis was a project to this mas stabilizing constraints the economy can produce. disorderly especially the impact of those of the working classes. the market that was increasingly freed of any limitation and obstacle so it resulted in globalization of the economy, the financial is asian of our economy and basic things like having the basics like having a

home and turning it into a financial product that left one's community. of course the elimination of borders was a real sense in terms of products as well as forced labor with the aim of producing cheap labor and at the same time it resulted in social revolution or. the ongoing social domain of the dismantling of stabilizing in the assets over the lives we live responsibly in and through our community. it used to be known as decency and norms and customs, obscenity and i grew up in a world in which it was rare and when someone said it you knew they were angry and not just take

that doesn't mean anything. pornography, make a public affection basically pornography. divorce, cohabitation, all of these dismantled. reproduction, do you think of reproduction and birth control, association sexuality from being life into the world and now abortion is not possible? of course marriage struggled as a culture. ...

drawing lines on what it is to be a man or a woman. surgical procedures to make sure that that line can be erased. has dismantledid any remnant of what was a mixed constitution that existed in the american tradition. we should note and celebrate that this was our constitution. i don't think our written constitution contradictedd this. it was our practice. part of the american tradition.

the order and stability and balance was replaced over time by revolutionary disorder. liberty as an abstract ideal of simply free choice. once would understand this phenomenon in the light of i think this classical, long classical tradition in the transformation it underwent in the modern time. i think now we can understand what we have seen politically in the world in the last decade. it seems to be a sudden outburst now we understand is in fact a somewhat articulate demand by those that are residual he of the party of order. we need order in our lives. we need stability. we needed in the economic realm.

i canan only laugh and chuckle. re- industrialization of america this is r really right wing. this is what right-wing is now apparently. under theorized, under philosophized, reaction from the bottom. elect oral preferences for brexit and donald trump. now becoming more conscious and deliberate and policies by ron desantis in t florida and a whoe bunch of red state governors. many of the policies being pursued by the most nefarious leader in the world. wanting to shore up and support families among other things. notice what one sees as an effort to restore the party of order. which is of course to the party of progress.

there are many people who are anticipating my book as a call to have a constant january 6. i want something far more revolutionary than that. i want a party of progress. and the store of order that is the dominant party in our politics. it runs through both parties. economically over the order and social order. the deep connection between these two things. this for me is what would constitute regime change. what would it look like, it would be a reimagining of this mixed constitutional tradition. not simply let's take aristotle and apply it today.

a chapter where make various policy proposals. i can talk about aristotle until the cows come home. let's break up washington, d.c. let's send these various departmentshi. the less built towns for the country. you need to push the envelope a little bit. what would mixing began to look like? beginning to mix the many and the few. placing less focus and emphasis on hourly colleges and universities and more on elite tradesnd. asking and indeed requiring people and elite universities to learn trade.

what would be a better argument that dominates the economic institution. learning how to wire a light fixture appeared there was no truth. no truth about this. common good conservatism. to encourage and foster the party to order. the granddad perhaps the father and mother. the c conservatism as a regardig of a society aspiring to org or

order and stability. constituting the conditions for true virtue in a truly good political order. i just want to close because an awful lot of people that wrote my last book said, well, you don't love america. you must hate america because you don't like liberalism. i want to say this is about recoveringf a deep part of our tradition. it is not necessarily a tradition if you were taught it was aboutt liberalism. that was a product of the cold war. it hid or shrouded the kind of on constitution of america. how people live their lives. when tocqueville comes to

america in the 1830s, he marvels that the americans have somehow figured out how to combine the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion. these two things in europe did not seem to go together. 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 marriage is the laws basically whatever the people said. the law can have the potential of being limitless. while the law permits americans to do as they please, religion prevents them from conceiving and forbids them from committing what is rash and unjust. he goes on. nature and circumstances have made the inhabitants of the united states bold. attested by the enterprising spirit which they seek their fortune.

if the mind of the americans were freey of all hindrances, they would shortly become the most daring innovators and the most persistent disputants in the world. these are not complements. innovators is not a good thing. the revolutionists of america are obliged to profess at least an up sensible respect to christian morality and equity. laws that f oppose the designs. nor would they find it easy even if they were able to get over their own scruples. no one in the united states has dared to advance that everything is permissible for the interest of society. having been invented for an age of freedom and to shelter all future tyrants.

what keeps us free of tyrants is our capacity to limit ourselves. our capacity to limit in the americanan condition situation makes us susceptible to that. they have succeeded in governing what is otherwise a constant. i would say if we seek to conserve the american tradition, this is a tradition we should be looking to conserve. thank you for your time. [applause] we have a certain circuit.

patrick's remarks at a very high theoretical level. they suggested they were appropriate for the literate layperson as well as the academic specialist whether a student or professor. we have among us today journalists, officeholders, policy experts, a wide range of individuals that will help us bring down to a level of implementation some of a the ids we have heard patrick discuss. we will also hear from all the panelists new theoretical as well. this mixture is something that modern age aspires very much to

reflect. as a whole trying to encourage among our students and faculty and friends. it is something that i think will be a wonderful kind of mixed regime itself on our stage with that, let me briefly introduce each of our panelists. to our left on stage not necessarily politically, the great senator jd vance who represents the state of ohio. the author of the bestseller hillbilly elegy a memoir of the family and culture in crisis. next to jd is christine. a columnist at the washington post. the author of the widely acclaimed rethinking sex a provocation k. next to christine we have doctor kevin roberts. the president of the heritage foundation. he earned his phd at the university of texas at austin. the host of a show that is a wonderful podcast.

two of the things i wanted to get into at the beginning of our discussion are, first of all, this idea of mixture and some of the divisions we see in american society. secondly, after that, moving on to some thoughts about progress. let me start by asking you, senator vance. you are someone who in political life has had to deal with a mixture of the fuel -- few in the many. deeply politicallyth engaged. a political establishment or for that matter a senate itself a body a few people and also the many. someone who represents a great many. someone who in fact i think for americans across the country as a voice of the many. how do you balance and practice in sort of the combination of theory and practice. the few and the many as an office holder. >> well, first, dan, thank you for doing this and thank you all

of you for being here. i guess i think that things in american society are towards the few i worry about the minium let the rest of it figured itself out. explicitly anti-elitist, anti- regime. elevating voices that have been largely ignored. i hope that i can play a part in that balance. i do not see myself as trying to concoct a balance myself. i see myself as a corrective. this question of mixture. i think of this is actually speaking. we on the right, this post liberal, how to define what it is, this hodgepodge of people. ideologies that are kind of collected themselves here today. i think that we are really, really kidding ourselves about the weight of the challenge. we talk about changing the regime, a word i myself had to

use before, i agree with patrick i think we have to be clear how difficult this is. one of the hangovers, one of the really bad hangovers from the parties that was talked about is this idea that there is an extremely strong division in the public and private sector. there is a necessary evil of government. it comes from spontaneous order. letting people do as much free exchange within that realm as possible. the way that lobbyists interact with interactive corporations. there is no meaningful distinction. it is all melted together. in my view, very much aligned

against the people i represent in the state of ohio. when i talk to more traditionalist economic conservatives, why has corporate america gone so woke. i see in their eyes this desperate desire. there are a couple of bad regulations at the sec. loving to not be super woke driver of american enterprise. budweiser has no desire to put out a series of advertisements that alienate half of their customer base. they are just being forced to do it by evil bureaucrats. the regime is a public and private sector. corporatewe ceos. working together, not against one another in a way that destroys the common good. it is a way we have to be

mindfull of. somewhat related to your point, as i i was talking, i thought about this. i have the microphone and no one is going to tell me to shut the hell up. [laughter] one practical piece of guidance, to your point about practicality towards high minus, i am the practical u.s. senator here on the stage. i would say that we should be extremely mindful to something patrick said about the real population we are dealing with. not a phantom or this idea that there is somehow perfect and that they are perfectly aligned with our politics. people are complicated. let me give you one example. i was at a campaign event three or four months before the election. after the primary, before the general election. i was talking with a 45 euro

black woman that came up to me and said she was a democrat and i was a first republic and she was going to vote for. i remember at the time i said this is a very sort of person my new right front think we need to be appealing to them they are right about that, by the way. a natural consistency for the republican party. what she told me was not about the fact that i was maybe more prolabor than the average republican or more pro- working class and the average republican , what she said, and i quote, you have been hit in the face like no other politician has. not because of any high-minded reason but because she felt too many politicians were cowards and i been hit in the face and was dealing with it. i think there is wisdom in that approach. not just a lack of sophistication. i think it's important we see

the wisdom, but we see it with very clear eyes. >> truly a feast. continuing to pilest up higher e offerings as we go on to our nextxt panelist. christine, in addition to the few of the many, some of the other divisions that patrick and jdnd have alluded to, the questn of how you get a mixed regime of men and women. men and women have, you know, both among themselves and also ideologically in terms of how we define men and women today and what we see their roles as being a great deal of confusion and anxiety and controversy. what do youou think about a mixd regime? what doo you think about men and women? what kinds of tensions do you see and what are your insights to how those tensions may be minimized or atfi least understd better and perhaps navigated.

>> that is a fascinating question. [laughter] >> first of all -- [inaudible] first of all, thank you for having me. it is a provocative book. i know having written a provocative asian —-dash one myself. why liberalism failed to one of my first columns for the washington post. the title of that column was called liberalism is loneliness. not just about the problems of men and women, but it described in referenced yearbook and talking about how this regime of liberalism, individualism, every man or woman for himself. has, in the end, left this all alone.

dependent on estate or dependent on a free market when the things that should have been injured by our communities, families, romantic partners, perhaps, have failed. liberalism leaves us entirely alone. i was thinking about that talking to so many young men and women and older men and women, to, about the problem of loneliness which is even more a problem than our current consent spaced overly liberal sexual regime. there is clearly felt and i think anye young person can talk about it with their friend. a breakdown that men and women as you mentioned do not know how to relat' to each other. it is unclear what our roles are

what should we do. how do we interact. what are the norms that shape our coming. together. without them, we strive. we move further away. we hide away. when you talk about the differences of the many and the few, many researchers have noted itng. the few impact while promoting perhaps more liberal norms, norms that are suited to individuals with resources amid relief elites that don't need to have families or partners. they make enough money to support themselves. who can, in fact, make it on their own. they live by the moral truths that were sometimes viewed as a property of the common person. but what is passed down tends to be, again, the individualization the idea that elites can suffer,

but many will not thrive in following. i think when i think about what a mixed constitution looks like when it comes to gender, i think of cooperation. of the cooperation that so many are searching for and longing for. supporting healthy attachment. yes, you can grow something in the place you are from. you don't have to leave and cross the country for opportunityer in leave everythig you love behind. when we talk about roles, especially in progressive or moreon liberal phases, there is this idea that you will be

pusheder into one. you have to fit one thing. there is no room for defense, no room for personal discovery. i would suggest actually that in a mixture of the many in the few , more opportunity, not less. more places that you could stay. you dop not necessarily have to be a girl boss driving to succeed. you do not necessarily have to be a guy that is hyper masculine hyper macho in hyped up on pornography. there can be face for everyone. i do have one question, actually , like any good journalist. i worry a little bit when we talk about sort of regime change are we sure that we are not just

replacing again the old elite. self interested in its own way. and then, of course, there is a question of sufferance. the liberal ideal is one that is actually very forgiving to people that are different. people that maybe do not fit the norms of their localities of their towns. of the assigned gender or at least what is understood to be there gender. in the new regime, people who differ just on sufferance or are theycl actually included. talking about relationships between men and women. there is a focus on family formation. we want strong families with the patriarchal father. they have kids and they do all

the normal things. what dowe they say two singles. what do we say to people that are yay, our lgbt. what do we say to people whose norms do not quite fit. where do they go in this new regime? for theted possibilities that you talk about in this book. i think there is a lot of room for agreement on questions. the few coming into contact. increasingly the theories. women and women are belonged just to themselves but to their families into their nation, to their communities andth others. the old conservative, not rounding government in the bathtub.

you know, feeding it up by good vitamins. i just want to make sure that these are courage of all. both men and women. also americans. [applause] >> patrick responding to them after the captain speaks. the great divisions at some of the companies have that may be mitigated or broughtin together. my question is going in the other direction. we have conflicts in this country. including between conservatives andre liberals. the premier conservative think tank. half of our country 30-50% of

the public does seem to be. you think about a mixed regime, how do you think about heritage mission in your mission as a leader? a country that is not altogether in support of the ideas. >> great question. >> for the record, i would still want to y drown government. i mean that as a working-class conservative. >> a government is not the solution. i actually believe in us to be argumentative. how i sometimes can be. 60% of the american people are with us on that. and the professor very briefly referred to me when we are done.

i actually think that we have understated, underestimated the endurance and strength of an institutional level outside. the community level conservatism it is just conservative. and, so, it leads me to answering yourgo question. it is a very good one. your country is fragmented. half of the conservative movement is fragmented. first and foremost being part of the conversations to add or multiply. not to condemn patrick but certainly would not command after a a great start in the senate. but, to use our ears before we speak. that leads to the second point

which is tactical and resisting all the temptations from this early american story and have a great conversation with my friend on early america. sticking with the practical. we have to acknowledge the emotion that they have to feel. left senator right they feel like they have lost something. they feel like they have lost the american dream. going back to drowning the government. not helping with that. if you are a poor person who is in your 20s or 30s, you are likely to be the third generation off the so-called great society totally misnamed war on poverty. all that has accomplished is to create people that are dependent on government. i do not mean that as a zombie reaganite which i am not. i mean that as someone who gives a damn as the human person. when heuc said when you start

reducing human sexuality, you start reducing sex to a physical act rather than the bonds of friendship, romance and building families and community. you are going to have massive repercussions. socially and governmentally. i know was a serious conservative catholic that we cannot go out and lead into this but we do know that if we can sidestep the policy and political differences thatle we have and talk to people on a human levelmi which is the loss that they felt even though i might disagree on these reasons. we get somewhere. and i would say this sitting here. i am really grateful to jd vance for legislation like the railway safety act.

i ame not sure heritage would e able to be there and support it. it may be qualified. i am using that as an example in his reaction proves the point. we can have conversations about this. and they use diagnosis for 94% of the people believing we have lost something as a country. a conservative movement under the center. under the left center giving the permission space to have those conversations so that by virtue of those discussions may be by revitalizing the institution of civil society that we can have a better political conversation.

it is totally broken. there is to be an exertion against washington by the people against the elites. i learned even though i'm halfway educated to use the term globalist means that you are anti-semite. [laughter] we have to stand against that and say you also are not going to control our language. this is our country. our elective representatives reflect our virtue. or our lack thereof. [laughter] i am still in old-fashioned guy as you know. i believe that politics is largely downstream from culture. growing up on the gulf coast where we have hurricanes the bayous and rivers flow backwards

politics sometimes can affect culture. i think it is really important and iwa will sum it up here, we understand that we are not just waging policies and political fights, but we are also in the battle for the soul of american culture. i have questions for patrick myself. i would rather give them a chance to respond for jd and christine the first responses i'm getting from the book that i think may be five people have readi . to me, it is extremely interesting. just to think of this first feedback. this is genuinely unpracticed. it is exciting but also terrified. it may be hearing having a

strongest disagreement on the stage. that is to say a conservative like me. not only as a catholic do i say that but also as a conservative. having ast civil society for the standard governing transportation food and drugs and so forth one of those that did not exist. i think that these are a reflection of some things you said in london which is we have a society we could debate over the origins of that. we have a so society increasing which has titanic forms of private power. globalizeded forms of private

power. corporate power, quasi- corporate power, massive private institutions that cannot be adequately covered or addressed at very local levels to the society not self icing. state government, if you have a company like walt disney that has a valuable piece of real estate in your state, you may be able to do something with that, but try that with apple or amazon. it gets awfully difficult to do that on a local level. we both understand the principle of subsidiarity. for many years conservative catholics have really focused on the way to place it on the local the issues or challenges we face should be addressed at the most local level because that is where people have the most knowledge, the most local knowledge an' the most

affectionate care for those issues. for this teaching also, directing us to understand that there will be issues that have to be dealt with at a higher level. we will need a u.s. senator to talk about national safeway standards. national institutions to address this. especially these forms of private power. i live in m the state of indian. i am not originally a midwesterner. i went to the midwest rather than state on the east coast in the swamp where used to teach at georgetown. in indiana in 2015 and the effort to pass the religious freedom restoration at the state level, it was the threat of economic destruction. companies like apple and eli lilly and the ncaa corporation. in a sense forcing them to reverse what was a legitimate piece of democratic legislation.

passed by the state legislature of the problem state of indiana and signed into law by then governor mike pence. i hear none of my colleagues have constantly talked endlessly about thete threats to democracy pays faced by contemporary america. overturning a piece of legislation. i don't want government to be drowned, i want government to do something in those kinds of situations. they need to actually get out of the water. get out of the bath and do something. now the government doing everything, of course not. i think we need adequate prudence and government to determine where the right level of government should apply. >> a metaphor. i want a water board government. [laughter] >> that may actually get more controversial reaction.

[laughter] >> it is. >> this actually allows me to make one may be slightly awkward transition to a topic i actually talked a good deal about in the book which is the rise of localism in the woke corporation something that the senator talked about. here i think, the way in which a lot of people are explaining thissm, a lot of people talking about cultural marxism and i think this explanation to be absolutely implausible at some level. i think that when you see essentially the trajectory of the liberal order of basically disordered progress, what we are seeing is the genuine wedding, the realization of a combination of the, let's say progressive

interest of capital in the progressive interest of the social revolutionaries. they found this way to mary each other as they found them in and through woke. taking place at a particular time. taking p place at a moment when the visible inequality and the condition that christine describes in whichop ordinary people are really now essentially rendered incapable of achieving those basic goods of life. marriage, family, owning a home, having an expectation of having a decent job. maybe your kid has a better job than you do or goes to a better school than you might. at the very moment when that became clearly visible, what happened? the most elite institutions, whether it was corporations,

private entities and mi worlds universities become the most solitary and institutions in the world. you have the president of harvard university eliminating social clubs on the basis that they foster and inegalitarian spirit and harbor. an admission rate of about 4%. a form of class warfare appeared it is a way in which they are using a language and appearance in an effort to shroud the fact that they are actually in the process of essentially using these institutions to govern in ways that constitute a kind of tyranny of progress and to actually dismiss the complaints, concerns and anxieties of those that areyo not in those institutions are saying we are backwards.

you have no standing in our society to make these complaints you are representatives of what we in these institutions are representing. the opposite of. among the things that are attempt to do is offer an explanation for the t rise of weakness as a form of explanation precisely how the party or the despotism of progress is now using this marriage of sort of a revolutionary social set of commitments to advance its interests. it is doing what every corrupt class has ever done. keeping itself in power by whatever means necessary. christine's very good and challenging questions. what prevents a successor. the regime change from being self-interested. it is for good reason that figure throughout this tradition that i am mentioning are not

about it always or even often that the interest of the many in the interest of the few are welikely not to be ultimately reconcilable. we ought to at least aspire to make them more. the replacement of the current elites in our society are more to be aligned to the interest of ordinary people. how do we measure that? we measure that by basic measures of social and human health. are we connecting? are we forming community in the form of families? are people able to have children and raisere children? are they able to live in communities where they are healthy? literally in the sense of not having train wrecks and chemical spills in their towns in their backyards, but also helping in a social sense.

the poor you are in this country , the more you are a member of the working class not living in washington, d.c. in all likelihood, the worse it is going for you. life expectancy is dropping for the first time in american history in these parts of thefo country. this ought toth be the topic of conversation on the lips of people that are working in institutions like mine. an elite institution and yet you never hear it discussed. a topic that does not reach the concerns of the contemporary elite. so we would have to think about the formation of an elite, the formation of a new ruling that has its primary object that aim to make what used to be a public utility, the public utility of being able to live a good life, even if you were not wealthy. even if you did not have the right degree, to make that public utility. here i think we will need the help of the private sector and yes the help of government. but i think that this should be

the task and the role of a regime change, the task in the role of a new elite that i would hope would be a reflection of a genuinely salutary form of a mixed regime, mixed constitution >> we will go into a few minutes of overtime. we have a very good conversation going here. we will try to fit in a few questions. let me turn to patrick's remarks senator, it seems as if for many of the elites, progress in america means leaving behind a great many americans. you've written powerfully about this inhe your own books. you've spoken about this on the campaign trail and as a senator. how do you bring the right kind of progress as opposed to the divisive progress. >> well, a very calculated question, of course.

one part of the solution is something that patrick said in his opening remarks. if you look at, you know, most americans just want a better lifefe. materially, that is a big part of cooperation. the entire time christine was talking, i'm reminded every time i talked to a young group of conservatives at eight campus and the cameras are off and it is a small group, they will eventually start talking about how terrible data -- dating is. how miserable the men and women are each in their unique ways. if you look, for example, one measure i think globalization is how many are laundered through the financial sector in the american economy. going back to 2007, 2008, the prophets right before the financial crisis. think about that. fundamentally taking american assets, offloading them to east

asia or central america, that requires a a much more robust financial sector than lending money to your neighbor down the street. telling this peak of globalization which i think was 2008, when you had this massive massive financial sector. you do not have nearly as much real productivity growth. this is one area where patrick makes me really worried about material progress. obviously it has its downside. higher productivity and i think that that is compatible yet somewhat complicated with a social contract but it is still fundamentally stable. what we have in the economy unfortunately is way, way too much ofna this so-called economc activity in the financial realm and globalization and, you know, secondaryh and tertiary financl products that have nothing to do with the economy. part of the answer is to actually invest capital in real

productive enterprises inn our own country. that is the sort of thing that producesal rising standard of living that is compatible. how to get there, of course, is a very complicated story. i thinko you need to make, fundamentally, you need to make it much more profitable. >> christinee, many people would say the sexual revolution is one of the key forms of progress that we have experienced in the last century or so. anything from changes in terms of the roles of the sexes and work, many more women work now than had done so a century ago. the fact that people are making a wider variety, perhaps of choices, sexually, them before. celebrated by not only many left-wing andnd progressive institutions, but millions of americans seem to have bought

into the idea of the sexual revolution. i think that your book is very interesting. you complicate that picture. in what ways is it not a try for progress or progress that may be , again, leaving behind people in ways that may be overlooked by this sort of celebratory publicity that the sexual revolution often gets. >> another great one. i think first we have to really think about what progress means. and i think that there are actually a couple different definitions of progress. doing good b work and sort of dividing out in his book. what one can describe as a liberal ideal of progress in which progress simply means moving forward. new discoveries and transcendence of themselves. progress human limitation to humann knowledge to other knowledge where moving fast and breaking things and sending

things to a higher plane, that is progress. or is it progress? i am not necessarily sure. there is certainly an ideal of helping more understanding. a scientific understanding. tools to move about to connect with each other. to determineha the course of our lives. contribute frankly tot our mentl and physical health. but, when it comes to the revolution, we are not supposed to ask is the progress justice idea of moving forward into a new thing. we don't know what the new thing is, but it's better than the old thing. progress in a different sense. improving the human person. actual movement towards flourishing. under those lights under the

progress the sexual revolution in some ways has gone off the rails. i will say it first. i do identify. having a very clear goal in mind we want women to be respected as well as treated equal in society men having the same freedoms that mended. that was a goal. that was an important one. we are still working towards that goal, actually. i do think you can see moments where the movement was call lasted towardsrs a different revolution. this first stored of progress. it was not so much a quality. wanting to flourish and become a kinder.

trying out new attitudes, new performances, escaping 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. then, of course, as i discussed before, the loneliness. -- working more on progress that is actually human. a progress towards a goal. a progress towards the good. towards flourishing, towards ast better society. not just progress for progress.

or progress for economic sake. the idea of the sexual revolution as freeing women up to work more. i do not think that that is progress. i also want to note the definition of progress have been wilderness. offering a bogeyman to sort of cast over very important things. people of color for women. complaining about their movements being co-opted by capital. movements for progress. women being respected as much as

men. black people being seen as white people. it is actually an important movement. it is not just wildness. it is not critical race theory, mainly misunderstood. they actually do mean something. it is there to criticize when they are used by elites to turn attention away from their misdeeds. it is actually wrong to ignore the real progress, the human progress that is being made. i am 30 years old. we have three kids at the age of six. a lot of young women with families in our peer group. something i've seen multiple times with well-educated women who are very oriented and focused on their career is they will have kids and they want some. where they can step back a little bit from their career and focus on their families.

the immense social pressure applied for those women taking six months off of work and spending time with the new baby is incredible. the idea that that is progress, this is somehow liberating, if you think, if you bought into an idea leaving a baby to go work 80 or 90 weeks at goldman sachs, you've been had. i think all of us have been had a little bit by that idea. [applause] >> that perfectly tees up what i wanted to ask kevin roberts. [laughter] you are the leader of a conservative think tank. a conservative policy shop. there must be forms of progress you would like to embrace. how dotu you separate what is gd about progress including some of the points that christine brought up. progress has lately become a sort of deliberate move away

from everything traditional. >> that is a good question, dan. it will just be so synced. progress is exemplified by increasing the dignity of the human person. the example that jd just mentioned for new moms or moms to be, struggling with that, that would be an example. i think where patrick is so right and is been right for many years is reminding conservatives of any strike that whether a politics orat policy or culture society at large, what we need to be focused on is the human person in the community. those are some of the eternal things that conservatism has always been about. the long, long tradition through the t post cold war area up to

this day that maybe it is not as descendent as it once was. at heritage, we also believe that in order to create the space in which individuals, communities, new institutions, reformedst institutions can help further progress help improve the dignity of the human person. we do have to get government out of the way. whatever metaphor you want to use with the bathtub. [laughter] i am a a conservative. a conservative institution. i think that it is redundant. it is about the good common good i don't mean that to be a criticism. i am grateful for that. we also have to step out of theory and philosophy. the dagger under the heart that

stands in the way. that is what has to be drowned. january 2025 whoever he or she is many very beautiful dogs. [laughter] very beautiful. that person we hope as they are taking the oath of office be grateful to the public. be grateful to a conservative movement. although we played a role in it. this is focused on what?

not just diminishing the scope and size of the administrative state which exemplifies what patrick and jd have said. that is what is standing in the way. i am hopeful. i know you are looking at this. wherever we are, whatever tribe we are in the center right in the american republican party, whatever tribe you are in that you realize that we still have time to take back this country. please, wherever yourd are, whatever books you like, whether you like heritage or not, whether you ought to water board or drown. [laughter] do not despair. we just have to be busy about all of these things we are talking about.

before turned to patrick with the last question from myself i want to alert our isi folk with microphone to be on standby. we will take a question or two from the audience will be concluded. patrick, i wanted to turn back to you. not just the progress but the idea of a mixed regime. the fact that he is living after a revolutionary aid. francis had a revolution and then had a restoration of monarchy. there are r some forces in frane that want the monarchy to be much stronger. wanted to be as powerful as it has been under louis the 14th, for example. others in the restored monarchy who want to have a second french revolution. of course you have military folks who perhaps want the napoleon bonaparte where he is they are rather, napoleon the third to come to power. this mixture of old and new, revolutionary, post- revolutionary and pre-

revolutionary. my question for you is, america has had a cultural revolutionary america has experienced these. is it the case that what you envisioned is returning to a pre-revolutionary condition or will a post revolutionary condition, one that has to recombine some of the aspects of the liberal order you described with the mixed regime that you want toub bring about? .... .... word is chosen with some care and and forethought, which is that it's not simply a going it's not a going back. it's not an effort to say, well, in order to restore, you know, 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 that we would probably impolitic for me to answer that. yes, it would be probably in other words, that there's a,

ther he words there is no going back. time doesn't work that way but also we went through this revolution in c kristine the aspects of it that i think certainly as a human being i would regard it as good and the treatment of african in the century in the treatment of them in the jim crow world and maybe there are people who want to go back. i genuinely hope when you describe yourselff as this conservative liberal or progressive there is no wanting to go back to that kind of condition and i certainly don't and here i would credit where they were described as liberalismas or as a kind of realization of a christian understanding and the ideal of human dignity they are certainly in my view there ought not to be any going back but what we

should also note in your comments pointed to this is that often these genuine achievements in the american political cultural social aura are framed in terms of their revolutionary revolutionary -- it's framed in terms of an over growing of all the previously -- that it is a part of her recidivist world of allover test to become -- overcome and transcended. speaking of a kind of ideology that regards the past in regards the which precedes us and kind of time of darkness and of superstition and the myth is that sometimes described. it's described as the kind of

time of and i think this ideology of progress is precisely what amongin other things helps us become dominant in america which would make us in many ways of what the future might hold. in other words the ability to have the kind of much more prudential understanding of how it is we are to act in the world and where one uses certain areas like the private-sector or the government that prepares us to bear allto the knowledge from pt history without in some ways being dominated by it and not to be nostalgic at the same time not to be an ideological progressive but that's simply a time that needs to be overturned in overcome. part of the book and at the end of the book i talk about the need of some ways of the future

which we sewed together time. it sounds theoretical but when you sewedt together time it's a very practicalbi purpose that we have the ability to understand the goods of the past as well as the bats of the past in order that we can live responsibly and ideology of progress in many ways relieves us of the responsibility of living responsibly and thoughtfully into the future because we have had toca just have the view that future willre take care of itsef and one often hears you can't stand in the way of progress. in other words it renders us in week and just simply makes us powerless in the face of what are supposed to be an avid abilities and in the esters of the genuine freedom we have to have the capacity to say certain

things we might regard as the change are going to be good. its trans-humanism and the good that we want. are there simply thinks it will be inevitable and we need to exercise judgment in terry think progress functions as a kind of ideology throughout civilization to actually deliver. >> everyone will want a copy of patrick's books which will be on sale after the event. let's get questions from the audience. we will go over there on the edge. and please keep clear questions end. so we can get a fewne >> thank you to the panelists and especially professor you been instrumental in my philosophical development. throughout the speech you sort

of painted liberalism as the philosophy of instability as sort of on social, healthy social forms on the other hand i think like rawls and his later views liberalism has stability admits pluralism so politicalism ast the bulwark the stable bulwark against the threat of chaos in a particular part of the invasion of the good work to take old and society especially american societyty so would he make of this challenge of pluralism and how do you view post a liberalism or common good conservatism as answeng this challenge to provide a stable future? >> i will be very brief and you indicate you've read some of my previous work. i would point you to the last

book which is the effort to show the claim you can have a kind of neutral or contentless liberal society basically is a myth and eventh a life. we are seeing that content visibly before us and forcing differences because you are required not to care. your prior to have no judgment and if you have judgment if you think something is right or wrong you are no longer permitted in the conversation so that's actually a content and that content becomes dominant and in fact the comes in the form of a regime. so situation in which it'sen noa debate of content. neutrality and perception of the good that we have the debate over we are in a situation where we have two -- and i'd frankly rather have conservatives describe ourselves in that and not simply say we just want to

live in the neutral society in which there is basically fundamentally an agreement. >> let me give kristine and kevin an opportunity for a last word in response to that question or other questions that t'have occurred. >> that goes to you robert. >> i was going to say ladies first. also to think the first is the heart of the conservative is gratitude andd i'm grateful to patrick deneen for his career and for his work in his bookk that i read on the plane back from london last night and i enjoyed it. we have a thousand times more things that we agree on than we have differences of opinion on. i'm most grateful for how you matter your students and you personify what a professor should be and you are a friend

of the heritage foundation. we have differences of opinion but that's okay in the second thing is in my heart i would say this even if i were not the president of the heritage foundation you are tied to the american republic. every single one of you in this room and my take away personally from this conversation that i think the professor would agree with this to tied to the republic to tied to the post-liberal new regime if that's your preferred language but please consider working in the next administration. i mean that. because if we don't do that if all we are doing is giving her time, didn't treasure to church and civil society and nonprofit and they are worthy and don't get me wrong but it may not be enough. the lesson or one of the many great lessons of the work that patrick deneen and others have done that isi champions as we are in an era of needing to impose political power in one of

the things we can do that, a relatively cheerful way and part of an administration that smaller as a resultt of what you are doing. project 2025. >> to the question i think i will echo what patrick said i'm not sure the difference between liberalism and total chaos. i think when the most interesting things about the book that you'll get to read is the description and which actually there or common norms and sitting across time and seeking wisdom that's not chaos. it may notit be relevant and ite not the political philosophy but there is knowledge there andso affect liberalism is standing in directly in contrast without so that's the question. as a closing note i think one

thing that j.d. senator vance said if it's under discussed the idea of the mixedhi constitution the post-wave of the future, the mix is important. we a lot of time talking about how elites have better ideas about how to run the country in the lease this and elites that in the "washington post" column the professor is ahead of thest think of the thing can get a university. >> that's not correct the record but maybe as a result of this book i might. [laughter] >> it's easy enough to gather in a room like this and think about how we should fix the world and make it better and have this discussion stay here. a real mixed constitution means

moving out into the world and not just moving from catholic universities too the reception across to the church down to the popular bar on e street. actually interacting with the people with seeing those people as valuable in their own right and not as enemies because there a different skin color of the long -- wrong political party. members of the populace who we want to share who we are in community with. there's often a feeling of wanting within the week to come up with a solution to help the people who are experiencing -- help those people out there and let's come up with a good idea and give it to them. i think that's one of the most important thingsn to remember n

this movement as we talk about how to reform the regime. to make sure it's actually -- actually inclusive in a row way. >> i'm grateful to our panelists and to our audience and alsoy very grateful to john burtka who as a final thought for us. >> thank you. speakers and patrick and dawn first answering the event. you can get it copied patrick spoke on the way at the door and on the back of your program you will see the qr code an ad for isi'ss homecoming weekend. it's 2.5 weeks from today in our beautiful 20-acre campus in the state we have great time and it's not just panels. we have jazz band and we have oysters and dancing. it's a fun time of community and friendship and we have great speakers including lee edwards h.w. brands and we will explore

the question of the great statesman artist and creators that have made this country so please sign-up and if you are under 30 years old you only $50 for an hour and ten-minute train ride and thanks again. [applause]