hundreds of nonfiction authors and guests. watch on booktv once again bringing alive all day coverage of the national book festival, guests and authors include librarian of congress carla hayden and the book i have something to tell you for young adults and former nfl player or k russell author of the yards between us. here the complete national book festival schedule online on booktv.org. the library of congress national book festival live, saturday beginning at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span2. healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. citizens are truly informed.

the republic thrives. get informed, straight from the force on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. on the nation's capital to wherever you are. it's the opinion that matters the most. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. good evening and welcome, everyone. excited for you to be here for the modern age panel on the new book regime change. this is part of a new initiative at isi to move modern age to the forefront of the conversation taking place in dc and around the country. so look forward to many more of these evenings with you. first and foremost i want to share about the history of modern agents cases some of you are not familiar it was founded by russell kirk in 1959 but he had the idea for modern age in 1951. and in 1951 he began to circulate a perspective to

various investors in the midwest, and his target readership was, quote, professors, clergymen, leaders of business, men in government and, this is important, those reflective people in obscure walks of life who preserve the equilibrium of any society. i will leave it to you whether you are the titans of industry and powerful men of government or whether you are those obscure people preserving the balance. while i'm saying it is amusing it's a sort of fundamentally statement about the dignity of ordinary people because who is preserving the equilibrium in society? it's not that you leads.eo it's the populace, people in the places that care about the most important things. one of the principles he said they would animate the modern age it's amazing how well they've held up. he says the journals that have a prejudice in favor of religion, prescriptive justice, liberty

under law, wisdom of ancestors, manly and a santa fault in society not being afraid to addresssi the problems of the a. the disposition would be national even international and ambition but ought to have a profound. middle westernrd sensibility in that america cannot afford to relinquish control of the immediate procession to a small circle of elites in two to three cities who cannot truly claim to speak for the whole nation. dan mccarthy does live in alexandria so to some extent, although i think that he is better than most if not the best in terms of truly understanding the interests and gives a beautiful way of keeping together the constituencies and trying to order conservatism and

america toward the common good. and no one is better than hannah and rona manager. we have exciting things coming for modern age and we have a new modern age online website that will be launching in the fall. we will have a big party and we have some 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 for. i was dismayed when someone sent an illegal copy of the book forwarding a pdf because i knew for the next week, i wouldn't be able to sleep and i would have to read this book he had to be pondering the publications inside of the book. profound questions being asked about the nature of america's

leadership class and restoring virtue to the common good, subsidiary and solidarity to america. it's fitting that the journal with a midwestern sensibility would have a velocity from the midwest come to address this evening and then of course we've assembled an esteemed group of panelists to respond to. thank you all for being here and i would like to welcome my colleague the editor of modern age, dan mccarthy to the stage. i'm daniel mccarthy and the editor of modern age and i hailed originally from the midwest and now live within the dc beltway in alexandria virginia, which is what we call the target rich environment. idj have to preface that with te intellectual adjective (anyone

get the idea but there's plenty of injustice within the city and nvits environment to be written about so i'm delighted to welcome you here tonight andnd really honored to be introducing one of the nights sponsors. a woman of many achievements along not least of which having served as the chairman of the board. onthe president of the american diplomacy foundation which we are honored to have as a sponsor of today's event. [applause] it is a great honor and pleasure for you to be here this evening but before i say anything else,

i want to congratulate you on the extraordinary job you're doing with modern age. [applause] it's fantastic. and i don't want to stop there. i want to congratulate you on the job that you're doing.. there are certain words or a combination of words that could impose an instant recognition on what they stand for. when i was at unesco, two words that fell into that category were marshall plan, ambassadors from struggling countries all of the world kept insisting they needed a marshall plan. fewne of them knew any details about the marshall plan. they didn't know how it worked or why it worked. they only knew that it played an

important role helping countries recover from the devastation of world war ii and they were convinced that a marshall plan could help their country achieve prosperity as well. this evening the two words most relevant in the discussion are those of a certain age know exactly what those words mean because we have lived through them. but what about after 1990 after the infamous wall came down and borders were reopened? after the iron curtain so named by winston churchill was liftedl what do the words cold war mean to you? the official definition of cold war and that bits 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 was experienced after world war ii was a decade-long struggle against the revolutionary ideology, communism. the communist ideology was. they sought to overthrow not only government that the but the nationalborders and rels institutions. the display to the communist attempts to remove the worldwide revolution through the interventions and occupation and to the subversion even in the heart of the free world, the cold war did not. the west won the cold war with diplomacy not only wasn't brilliant and gained diplomacy of ronald reagan.

at with public policies that span negated. they focused on promoting western ideas and culture. our diplomacy and statecraft were affected because we were not promoting an alternative global revolutionary ideology. we were promoting freedom. our allies in the cold war trusted us to uphold what the communists sought to destroy. a nation and religion. how is it then that today 30 years u after the american diplomacy has become so ideological and revolutionary investigational. today regime changes the watchdog of the movement and liberalism is no longer the negation of the socialism or communism. instead liberalism means comprehensive programs to be promoted everywhere begins at

home. we won the cold war against communism abroad but at home it's establishing for has established an ideology in our own institutions and you know that this cultural workrk is doe to the colleges and universities. the results have been disastrous physically, economically, diplomatically and culturally and disastrous for the world as well. america waged war for decades without any of the success that we achieve in the diplomacy in the cold war. 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 as a nation we need to bring an end to the revolutionary ideology just as eastern europeans and russians broke down the communism that occupied other nations. they turned the table on thee ideologue and this is regime change to restore the country and restore peace and stability around the world so please join me in welcoming on behalf of isi the american diplomacy foundation and modern age patrick and all of our distinguished panelists. thank you. [applause]

i will be acting as mc and moderator. the professors at the university of notre dame andma author of my books including why liberalism failed and regime change. with that, we will bring patrick out. [applause] thank you for those remarkablehi comments and all of you on one of those nights in washington, d.c. when you are not sweating to death from the weather that i remember all too well. i'm deeply honored by the w

gathering. i would be remiss if i didn't say that i was most honored by the presence, pretty significant of several generations of students i was able to mingle with and as a teacher andly someone who may be moving towards the end of my career this is what gives me hope to have these numbers of students i see launching into the world and i just want to thank you all from princeton days and georgetown days and no notre dame. i'm grateful. we are all aware of the dynamics of the current political divide not only in the united states but around the world. what has been endlessly discussed as the rise of a kind of new political dynamic in the west seen in various forms with the election of donald trump and various movements around the

world, the recent elections in italy resulting in the pre- minister in other words the rise of populism is a considerable political force in our world and one of the things that struck me about a lot of the commentary about this phenomenon is how many people regard this ase something new, something we have to get our heads around because of how distinct and sudden and incomprehensible this is and some level but as someone who teaches the history of political thought and spent a lot of time reading greek and roman and latin and the broad the thtradition of political this doesn't seem to need to be even remotely surprising. what reminds me is the time of the history of the world when we would think this is not the nature and the fundamental division going back to antiquity

and i would mention a few times here tonight aristotle in particular states out right that all political regime's and i use this word advisedly all political orders are divided one fundamental way between the few and the many and everywhere this seems to be ale truth about aristotle and his empirical political science hat says the fact that when he looks around content degree greece of his day there seems to be the predominant regime types, democracy which is true where he was living and writing and oligarchy the regime of the many and the regime of the few and aristotle you can remember back in the introduction of political theory regarded both of these as

vicious, reflecting a kind of vise they were not one that he regarded as good as the sort of exemplary ones of the good regime in other words they were not regimes, democracy but regime of the many and oligarchy the regime that favors the few. they were not constituted in order to realize the common good, the good of everyone in the society. they were regime's of a certain kind of party, the party give them anymore the party of the few. and because of this fact, aristotle said because these regime's, oligarchy or democracy would always constituted to favor some number and some limited number of people within the regime based upon the class it meant that these regime's were prone to two likely trajectories. and in fact the two likely trajectories were likely to be to follow one up on the other. the first was the civil war.

at 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. the other result was likely tierney. at that when one aside woodway and they would tear lies over the other side. so here's an ancient philosopher and this is a theme that is repeated over and over again in the history of political fault saying that every political order is essentially destined that it would seem to two outcomes. civil war or tyranny. and if you read the papers today, you read the all bids and the columns, these were two words we see a lot of these days. america is in the midst of a new cold civil war, while we are being governed and entered an amicable fashion.ma these very indigent words have made their way back into our vocabulary. now aristotle wasn't pessimistic about this. he thought there might be a way to address or redress this basic u problem of politics and he sad

if you are really blessed and fortunate you might have a good king or aristocracy, but those 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 at the various features and qualities of the many and the few. and in this tradition, there's actually a lot of really interesting discussions of the respective virtues of the people, of the populace. and the respect of the virtues of the few of those that are likely to be to benefit from the class advantages of being in the party of the few. the few those that reflected the virtues of the oligarchs tend to have more elevated taste. they like nice restaurants. if you live in dc, even if you are not rich, you benefit from the cuisine. in south bend we don't have quite the selection of

restaurants, not his many oligarchs. [laughter] and the few that we have now work in the department of transportation. [laughter] the oligarchs order the few have the advantages of leisure of educationn and refinement and of high culture. these are the things that arecr added fired among the aristocrats or among the oligarchs like past the mansion downtown on dupont circle and i'm glad that it exists even if i'm not likely to buy it for $3 million. on the other hand, the many of the people, looking at you, reflect a certain kinds of virtues. they are ordinary. these are people who tend to be close to the earth. they know the work of hand's. they often are doomed to do things themselves, fix their own cars, plant their own crops. they know how to make an

electric circuit close. they can understand the reality of limits, you have to have a budget and live within it. they understand often that we can do it on our own. sometimes with money they think they can do itt on their own would don't have to rely on their friends and neighbors. so there are people that are often rooted and they have memory and often as described they are people with piety may be because of their condition being limited and recognizing that the way in which they have a ball beyond themselves but each of certain voices that are kind of endemic to their condition. the few find it easier to dominate the many. they have more tools in their hands. they can control the media, they can control the financial system. they controlled the institution, the educational institutions. they are marked by a kind of elitism or condescension into

words the many. they have the ability to live separately and in far nicer places than the many. and they also have their vices. they tend to be course. they can become degraded especially when they are not led by good leaders and then in such a condition they can be attracted to demagogues and can't be manipulated. the resentment can't be manipulated by demagogues. the proposal of someone like aristotle with a whole series of thinkers was to take the elements of the two groups that are found in nearly every political order and makes them in the hopes and the intention that the virtues of each side would counteract and cancel out the vices of each side and that this would result in creating a good worker that this would actually because of the respective virtues of each they

would contain the vices of each. this wasn't merely checks and balances. this was a kind of aspiration to a certain virtue and a virtue that achieves a certain kind of moderation now about mixing of extremes. one of the hallmarks of the tradition is the stress that the two created to such a constitution was. but once it was realized or to the extent that it was realized, it required order and stability and a kind of balance. what would be a source of danger to such an achievement would be instability, rapid change, in balance and transformation. for as long as possible then, one has such a regime one should seek to continue it forward by

retaining the balance in the same way like a plank on your head or something you don't walk, you run with a certain amount of care are trying to keep it balanced as you are moving forward. in the book i make the following argument and claim and i've been thinking a lot about this and this tradition as it relates to the contemporary politics. it seems to me that there is a way in which the modern world and of the modern age, i'm not sure that i am as fond of it, i don't think that russell was either that part of what constitutes modernity and we could describe it in many ways is to reject this ancient idea of what might be the resolution of the divide between the many and the few and to replace it with what we might describe as a politics of progress. the politics of change often rapid change, transformation

that rather than seeking order and stability and continuation, the modern solution to this problem of the divide between the many and the few is to promote a society that would engage in constant and even constantly increasing change in , transformation. the liberal tradition itself beginning with the liberal tradition overturns this idea of classical mixed regimes, mixed constitutions 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. in the earliest of the liberal thinkers was especially those that argued that this, the presence of this kind of change in the economic realm and that the elites of such a society especially now the oligarchs to

use this language needed in some ways to be protected from the threatss proposed by the many. thee classical liberalism finds its opponents in marx and marxism like who wants to promote the revolution of the many from below but that also becomes suspect also of populism more broadly. populism becomes something suspect in the viewing end of the eyes of the classical condition. and there are contemporary politics, those we might classify as classical liberals have become never trump or the point of a classical liberal who would call himself a conservative but it wason especially hated the way in which the promotion of the views of the many poses a threat to the theory of dynamic constantly

transformed economic. it builds in the theory of how the eu leads in this case economically to have to be the guiding force in the society anh develops a constitutional order that seeks to restrain and constrain the ability of the many to interfere in the rights of property. it would be described as a progressive liberal tradition that is also borne of the antipathy towards the many. and the outright denigration and distinct condemnation towards the many. this is because of the instinct of conservatism the tendency to be governed by what he calls the despotism of costo and that if the society is going to become a more progressive society, the society in which the transformation and change of a

pending of the traditional ways of d doing things one needed especially to liberate the sodistinctive individuals in one society. of those he praises for his individuality in order to release what he regards as the human orientation to creatures who are regressive beings in their essential form. .. one of the ways right pleural

voting. giving thosete who are more educated, more votes thereby ensuring progress would be insured by those who were more educated being in control of the political process. but as we know today you do not necessarily made more votes you need thetu institutions the cultural institutions that cans in some ways to serve as essentially the functional equivalent of pleural voting. the result of this transformation move away from the tradition of the idea of mixed constitution with its trusts upon stability, order, balance towards one of transformation and constant change. a philosophy and a politics of progress was a creation of a new divide in our politics. and again here students of pulled political philosophy will realize this. the new divide in the politics is the party of order against the party of progress. thosedo who call yourselves conservatives or if you do not call yourselves conservatives one should understand this isco

the origins of what conservatism was. edmund burke against the french revolution. i was a benjamin against what he saw as the philosophy that was a combination of a commercial class as well as the cultural revolutionaries of its day. this was the beginnings of conservatism which understood it self as a bearing the tradition of the mixed constitution philosophy the mixing of the elites and the ordinary people for edmund burke the combination of the old aristocracy. with the instinctive conservatism of the many. if you read his thoughts considerations on the french revolution what you see say the aristocracy is especially responsible for preserving the way of life that has been developed organically from the bottom up. there is a responsibility of the

elite to preserve the order of the society.ar this is the origins of the party of order or conservatism. they are opposed against the party of progress which was typically a combination of economic and social liberals. what most countries in the world liberal party and which we in some ways have failed to understand that this combination of the social and economic liberals really does s constitute a single party. in the 20th century and significantly in part because of particular circumstances arising from the cold war, conservatism against russell kirk's desires was transformed in a liberal direction. what was called liberalism became redescribed as a kind of conservatism. it resulted in a kind of unit party.

a party that was consistently liberal. even though it fought against each other and its economic guys and its economic dimension what came to be known as conservatism and the social which came to be known as progressive. this divide became for us and if you are like me, a catholic, doubtless saying i do not know who to vote for they are all problematic. and the fundamental reason they are all problematic is because they really come at the deepest level or representing a liberal philosophy of philosophy of disorder. a philosophy of instability and in balance. in spite of the constant oscillation between these two liberal parties one claim to be economically conservative and one claiming to be socially liberal.

it was in fact the case it was a single project that unfolded consistently over time, causally 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 divide called conservatism but now i think increasingly called neoliberalism. my friends call them neoliberals. this wasas originally the projet of the right liberals. but of course became adopted and embraced over time by so-called progressive art left a liberal to bill clinton and tony blair. this is a project of seeking to dismantle conservative or stabilizing constraints upon the disorder that an unbridled economy can produce. the disorder ring that f especially impacts those of te lower classes and the working

classes. m a world of strategy market that was increasingly free of any kind of limitations and obstacles. and at the risk of beingor condemned the way kevin roberts was condemned this resulted in globalization. the globalization of the economy the it outsourcing of industry something against senator vance knows all too well about to be the financial as they should have the economy. the delinking of basic things like having a mortgage which is all about having a home. and turning it into a financial product that left one'sun community. in the opening the elimination of borders in a very real sense all in terms of products as well as of course labor. here again with the aim of producing cheap labor in cheaper products. and at the same time the project resulted in an ongoing form of cultural and social revolution

the ongoing liberalization of the social domain. the dismantling again of the stabilizing and conservative aspects over the realm of the social lives. the lives we live responsibly. 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. when someone said that you knew they were angry or it meant something and now it's just like a verbal tic. it does not mean anything. indecency, pornography, nakedness, public displays not just of affection but basically pornography, blasphemy. sexual mores, divorce, cohabitation, illegitimacy all of these the obstacles of the limits dismantled.

reproduction at the delinking of reproduction birth control and abortion disassociation of our sexuality from bringing new life into the world. i know abortion being praised as a positive good something one should celebrate. of course in marriage and issue over which we have struggled as a culture but in fact one which is in spite of the portents of marriage in our national debates is ceasing to exist as a reality. we have a base about what is marriage people were ceasing to get married. we've all kinds of relationships told the "new york times" article advising the best cities to live it if you want to have a polyamorous relationship. now we do increasingly do notot want to draw lines of what it is to be a man or a woman. we have surgical procedures to make sure that line can be

erased. this party of progress simultaneously in the social realm has dismantled any remnants of what was at residual in the american tradition. we should notes and celebrate ne this is our constitution. i don't think the written contribution contradicted this but it is our practice. it is a part of the american tradition. stability and balance it was replaced over time by a revolutionary disorder one that praises liberty as it abstract ideal of free choice, disruption in the language of progress. once one understands this phenomena in the long classical tradition and the transformation

underwent in modernth time we cn more adequately understand politically in the world in the lastee decade. this seems to be ann outburst nw we understand is in fact somewhat articulate demand by those who are at least residual he of the party of order saying we need order in our lives. we need stability. we need a balance we need that both the economic realm and in the social realm. when this movement is described as a right wing movement i clinked laugh and chuckle and notice have you noticed tariffs and re- industrialization of america and helping working-class people get good jobs? this is really right wing it's what it is now? apparently. under theorized, under philosophizing. reaction from the bottom expressed through preferences

for donaldom trump. but ron desantis in florida and a whole number of red state governors and many of the policies being pursued by the most nefarious leader in the world. i was to shore up and support families among other things. notice what one sees as an effort to restore the party of order. and that is the party of progress who wants to reign supreme. who wants to reign as a tyranny. there are many people anticipating my book as a call to having unceasing generally six it even favors regime change was to finally overthrow the government i do not divinely overthrow the government i want something far more revolutionary than that. [laughter] the party of progress. and restore a party of order

that isou actually the dominant party and our politics. that runs through both parties. whether we divide economically in a social order we see deep connection between these two things. this is for me is what constitutes regime change. it would be a reimagining of this mixed constitutional tradition it's not simply let's take it and apply it today it's probably not a good idea. here is glad we had these people to talk with that of a a chaptei make various policy proposals i should admit to forthrightly i am not a policy person. i can talk to the cows come home but i proposal to break up washington d.c. let's send these departments and various institutes let's send them out of washington.

let seven to the rust belt towns where they can actually help our country. at that radical undoable proposal. push theth envelope a little bit what would nixon begin to look like? mix the many and the few. placing less of focus and emphasison on learning trades. having people who can do things in this country. asking and requiring people and otherwise elite universities to learn a trade. what would be a better argument that now dominate our economic institutions. require students to learn how to wire a light fixture. you get it right or you get it wrong. there is no truth about this. i call this proposal i call

common good conservatism because it is about the effort to encourage and to foster a party of order. by conservatism and i hope you all hear this this is not the conservatism of your granddad perhaps. or of your father or mother. this is a conservatism even though aristotle did not know the word this is the conservatism of a tradition that regards ari society aspiring to order and stability of that which has potential constituting true virtue. and a truly good politicalec order. i want to close because an awful lot of people who read my last book said you do not lovee america. you must hate america you do not like liberalism. here i want to say and for this really wonderful group of people many ofg, whom are my former students and wondering if this

really means he hates america this is about recovering a deep part of our tradition. it's not necessarily the tradition you've taught andhe you've been taught it's about liberalism. that itself was a product of the cold war it served a particular function at that time. it alighted or hid or shrouded the kind of unwritten constitution of america. how people lived their lives. i can't and a lecture without looking tocqueville. when it comes to america in the 1930s he marvels the americans have somehow figured out how to combine the spirit of liberty and thetw spirit of literature. these two things in europe did not seem to go together. he says in america the law permits americans to do what they please. we can redefine what a man or woman is paid we can redefine what america the law is what the

people says it is. 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 to commit what is ration unjust. nature and circumstances made the inhabitants of the united states bold as a sufficiently attested by the enterprising spirit for which they seek their fortune. some things do not change. if the mind of the americans were free of all hindrances they would shortly become the most daring innovators on the most persistent disputants in the world. these are not compliments. innovators is not a good thing the revolutionist of america are obliged to offense a respect for

christian morality and equity which would not permit them to violate labor laws that oppose their designs that everything is permissible with the interests of society. this seems to have 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 is our capacity to limit our temptation to beat revolutionist the american condition situation makes us susceptible to that. and yet tocqueville observing the americas says they have done it. they have succeeded and governing what is otherwise a constant temptation in front of them. and i would say if we seek to

conserve the american tradition this is a tradition we look to be conserving. i thank you very much. [applause] tracks our panelists come up on stage. we have a certain sequence for them i think they know their seats. doctor kevin roberts and patrick at the end. [applause] so patrick's remarks at a high theoretical level as the introductions suggested or appropriate for that literate

layperson as well as academic specialists while a student or a professor. we have among us today journalists, officeholders experts aaders policy wide range of individuals help us to bring down a level will hear from the panelists new theoretical perspectives as well something modern age certainly aspires very much to reflect that something isi as a whole tried to encourage among our students, faculty and friends. it is a wonderful mixed regime itself on our stage. but that o let me briefly introduce our panelists immediately to my left here on stage not politically the great center jd vance represents the

state of ohio. the author of the best at memoir of family culture in crisis. and crisis. next to jd is kristine of the "washington post" she's author of the widely acclaimed and aptly titled rethinking sex a provocation. next to kristine we have doctor kevin roberts the present of the heritage foundation he earned his phd in american history at the university of texasan at austin and is the host of the kevin roberts show a podcast. two of the things i wanted to get into the beginning of the discussion the idea of admixture and some of the division's receipt in american society. secondly after that about progress what it means, what's good about it, bad about your particular perspectives. let me start by asking you at senator vanceo you are someone life has had to deal with a mixture of the few

and many. the few who are deeply political and gauge the feud might be the senate itself and the many the great many of ohio. you're someone who in fact for americans across the country is a voice of the many. how do you balance in practice and the combination of theory and practice the a few and the many as an office holder as a statesman? >> first, dan thanks for doing this and thankan you to all of , for being here. and thank you for writing a great book. i guess i think things in american society are so tilted i worry about the many and let the rest the figure itself out. i see my role in my voice is being explicitly anti- elitist. explicitly anti- regime. the extent we can elevate voices that are largely ignored, that is the role i play and i hopefully play a part in that balance.

but i do not see myself as trying to concoct the balance myself but i see myself as a corrective. one observation want to make on this question of mixture i was thinking about this as patrick was speaking part we on the rates the post liberal how we want to an ideology has collected herself here today but we are really, really kidding ourselves about the weight of the challenge. we talk about changing the regime is in fact a word i've used myself or agree with patrick and we have to be clear. let me illustrate this with one particular issue. one of the hangovers the really good hangovers from that unit party that patrick talks about is this idea theirs is extremely strong division between the public sector and the private sector. the public sector is a necessary evil to the extent we do not limit it that's going to do a

lot of terrible things. private sector that which comes from spontaneous order but it is organic. i want to let people do free exchange as much as possible. on the reality of politics the way lobbyists interact with bureaucrats, interact with corporations there's no meaningful distinction between the public and private sector the american regime. evans melded together in my view one, we talked to more traditional talk to these guys i see in their eyes this desperate desire it's always coming from scc. there it would love to be a super awoke driver of american

enterprise and budweiser has no desire to put out a series that advertisements that alienate half of their base are being forced to do it by evil bureaucrats by there's an element of truth to that. the element is the regime is a public and private sector is the corporate ceos. a it's the hr professionals at budweiser they are working together not against each other in a way that destroys the american common good. that is thehe fact we are dealig with and something we have to be mindful of the one final point i will make somewhat related to your point. so stop and thought about this i have the microphone and no one is going to tell meus too shut p i'm going to quit make this point. [applause] one practical piece of guidance i would give your point about practicality with highen minders on the lowly practical u.s. editor here on the stage. i would say we should be extremely mindful for something

patrick said about the real population are dealing with. not at their perfectly aligned with their politics. i don't think anyone in this roomom has. it was after the primary before the general election. i was talking to probably a 45 year old black woman who came up to me and told me she was pro-life. she wass a democrat i was first republican she was going to vote for. i remember at the time thing this is a very sort of a person my intellectual right friends think we need to be appealing to and they are right about that by the way. i also think it's a natural constituency for the republicana party.ri i don't think there are so right about thate a lease that republican party, because what she told me it's not about the fact i was maybe prolabor the

average republican auras more pro- working class in the after publican. what she said and i quote speaking about my book you've been hit in the face and no other politician has that's when she was voting for me not because of any high-minded because she got too many politicians were cowards and i'd been hit in the face that's who we are dealing with and to patrick's point there is wisdom in that approach. the lack of sophistication burn it's important to see the wisdom during. >> 's was truly a feast will pile up higher we go to the next panelist. the other divisions patrick and jd have alluded to the question pay get mixed regime of men and

women. many went men and women among themselves which of the roles as being was a great deal of confusion, anxiety and controversy. so what do a you think of a mixd regime to think of the few the many and you think about men and women? what kind of tensions do you s see? what are your insights into how those tensions might be minimized or understood it bettr and perhaps navigated? >> that is a fastening question. [laughter] first of all reformed up? >> excellent. thank you for letting me be a part of the first discussion. and as a provocative book having written a provocation i reviewed my liberalism failed the title

of thatt column was liberalism s loneliness. essentially it was not just about the problems of men and women. itd described every man a woman for himself. in thell end has left us all alone. who iste in fact not a mate or a partner. or dependent on a free marketns things should have been ensured insuredby our communities our f, our romantic partners perhaps. as i was rethinking and talking to so many young men and women and older men and women two.

about the problem of loneliness. which was even more a problem then our, current consensus -based overly liberal sexual regime. there clearly felt and i think any young person in this room has felt it, i can talk about it with his friends. the sense of a breakdown that men and women as you mention, do not know how to relate to each other. it is unclear what our roles are. it is unclear what is a man? what is a woman? what should we do? what are the norms that would shape our comingto together without them we move further away we hide away. when you talk about the many and the few, many researchers have noted this. the few while promoting liberal

norms norms are suited to individuals with the resources indeed elites who do not need tu have families or partners they make enough money to support themselves who can and fact make it on their own. those are the people who end up living by norms by the moral truth we are sometimes viewed as a property of the common person. the trappings, the ideas that many will not thrive in following. i think what about a mixed competition looks like when it comes to gender, when it comes to the sexes i think of an idea of cooperation. many are searching for and longing for and seem to be missing in this moment. yes, norms the supporting family

formations, supporting healthy attachments. norms that suggest you can growth something in the places are from. you do not have to leave and cross the country and leave it think it got behind. there's an understanding of roles perhaps. when we talk about roles especially in progressive or more liberalfr spaces there is this idea you have to fit one thing. there's still room for there's no room for personal discovery. but i would suggest in the mixture of the many and the few vision for more opportunity not less. there are more places you can fit.

you do not hyper masculine hyper monster to get girls on tender. classes and gender. i do have one question like any good journalist, professor. i worry a little bit we talk about regime change and a new elite. are we sure we are not just self interest withd a new one that is self-interested in its own way? then there is the question of sufferance. for all of its faults the liberal ideal is one that is actually very forgiving per different for people who maybe don't fit the norms the assigned

gender in the new regime are people who differ are they included there is a focus on family formations with patriarchal father and a mom who perhaps ideally was not home for they have kids they do all of the normal things. what do we say to singles when we say to people who are gay who are lgbtq who do not quite fit. where did they go in the new regime? i am excited for the possibilities you talk about in this book. again you might say progressives would instantly push this away. but i think there is a lot of

room for agreement on questions of the few come into contact with more people than just themselves and increasingly arcane theories. this idea of national service comic teaching both men and women they belong not just to themselves but to their families into their nation, to their communities, to others. this idea of old conservativesed but getting out of the bathtub and eating it up i want to make sure they are cordial. a suit men and women but also all americans. [applause] access are some excellent questions. we'll have patrick respond to

them after kevin roberts speaks. i was very happy and mentioned the way the divisions of the country might and happy mitigated or brought together or overcome.n, the question for kevin is going the other direction we have conflict in this country. including conflict between conservatives and liberals. you are the leader of the premier conservative think tank in the united states. and you are well aware half of our country or 40 -- 50% of the public might think of heritage admission as a leader. that is notot altogether great question. for the record i did not want to

disappoint you. i mean that i mean that as a working-class conservative. ask to be argumentative i as i sometimes can be 60% of the american people are with us on that.. i'm very grateful for everything you have done but i actually foy think in the conversation thus far we have understated underestimated the endurance and strength of the institutional level outside the area or the community level of conservatism. it's just conservative. that leads me too answering it's

a very good one. the country is fragmented half of the conservative movement on his heritagee approach been to that question at first and foremost to do what we have always done. to add and to multiply. not to condemn but certainly would not condemn center advances up to a great start in the senate. we do not condemn it. tease her ears before we speak. that leads to the second point which is tactical and resisting all of the temptations from this early american historian to have a greatt conversation. with the practical part we have to acknowledge the emotion the american people are feeling. we feel we've lost the american dream they feel in fact go back to driving the government government does not help with

that. if you are a poor person who is in your 20s or 30s you are likely to be the third generation of the so-called great society totally misnamed or on poverty. i don't mean that' as it i think he had it right when he said he human sexuality but we start reducing to just a physical act, rather than to the bonds of friendship, romance, building families and community you are going to have massive repercussions, socially and governmentally. i know as a series conservative catholic we cannot go out and

lead into the left of center. but we do know we can sidestep the policy and political differences we haven't talked to people on a human level which is the loss they felt even though i might positive why they felt that lastly might disagree on this recent period we get somewhere. and i would say this if we were not sitting here. i am really grateful to jd vance for legislation like the railway safety act too. i am not sure heritage is going to get there to support it. and we may his reaction proves the point we can have conversations about this. and build not just a new conservative movement but hopefully a new country. patrick is so right in his diagnosis people believe we've

lost something as ad country. one is the ability to sit and speak civilly to air differences of opinion. what heritage is trying to first with the conservativee movement may be a little bit into the center and to the extent we can left of center is to give people the permission space to have the conversations. by virtue of those discussions may be by revitalizing the institutions we could have better political conversation. washington is totally broken. and yes, there has to be a tremendous exertion of a political power against washington bymy the people agait the elites. my comments yesterday morning and one meant the conservative conference i learned even unhappily educated that to use the term globalist your anti-semites. towho knew. [laughter] we have to a stand against that and say you also are not going

to control our language. this is our country. our elected representatives reflect our virtue. or our lack there of. and it is them who are the problem. i am stillda in old-fashioned gy as you know and believe politics is largely downstream from culture. by growing up on the gulf coast film we have hurricanes the bayous and rivers of flow backwards. so politics sometimes can affect culture. i think it's really important to know some appear or conclude at heritage we understand we are not just wage and policy and political fight we are also in the battle for the soul of american culture. i have questions aplenty for patrick myself. but rather than a lobbying those at him i would rather let him respond to the comments we've heard from jd and kristine.

brexit first thing to acknowledge this is the first response on getting to a book i think may be five people have read it.st for me it's extremely interesting. just to get this first feedback. it's a genuinely unpracticed. it's exciting but also terrifying. you might be surprised c-span is recording so it might surprise c-span viewers to hear the person of with i have the strongest disagreement as the president of the heritage foundation. has to say in notorious conservative like me find sandia grout to be absurd and frankly dangerous idea. not only as a catholic do i say that but also as a conservative or a certain kind of's conservative. you already mentioned one of these reasons i would rather have a society in which we have

certain standards governing transportation, and food, and drugs, and airlines and so forth rather than one it that those did not exist. i think we would agree to that. >> to a degree. >> more than that or even beyond those are the more obvious things. these are actually reflection of some things you said in london which is that we have a society. we can debate over the origin. titanic forms of private power. corporate power, because i corporate power. massive private institutions that cannot be adequately governed or addressed a fairly local level civil society will not suffice. state governments if you have a company like walt disney which has a valuable piece of real

estate he might be able to do something with them if you are the governor. try that with apple or amazon. it gets awfully difficult to do that on a local level. now as catholics who both understand the principle and for many years catholics -- met conservative catholics have really focused on the way the subsidiary, places on the local. the issues or challenges we face should be redressed at the most local levelst because that is a people have the most knowledge, the most local knowledge the themost affection and care for those issues. butan the teaching also directss to believe there'sve going to be issues that have to be dealt with at a higher level. u.s. senator and the safety standards we are going to needss national institutions to redress this. especially these forms of private power. i live in the state of indiana not original i was at midwesterners more revealing i went to the midwest rather than state on the east coast when i

used to teach at georgetown. in the state of indiana in 2015 in the effort to pass the religious freedom restorations act at the state level it was a threat of economic destruction by companies like apple and eli lilly, and the ncaa. not even a corporation. that innocence forced indiana to reverse what was a legitimate piece of democratic legislation. duly passed by the state legislature of a sovereign state of indiana and signed into law by then governor mike pensive. i hear none of my colleagues have constantly talked endlessly about the threats to democracy faced by contemporary america when speaking of january 6 have a people to say about the role these private corporations play in overturning a piece of state legislation. this is where i was i do not government to be drowned out government to do something and n

those kinds of situations. need to get out of the water get out of the bath and do something to protect the citizens of that state. joe with the government doing everything in our lives? of course not when adequate prudence and judgment to determine where the right level of government should apply. >> i will amend my metaphor i want a waterboarding government. [laughter] brexit make it more controversial reaction this actually allows me to make one slightly awkward transition to a topic i talk a good deal about in the book which is the rise of a woke -ism in the woke of corporations some think senator vance talked about.

and here i think the way in which lots of people are attempting to explain in london people chocolate cultural marxismis is the source of the rise of woke us in. i found this explanation to be absolutely implausible at some level. i think you see essentially, especially the trajectory of the liberal order basically disordered progress, but we are seeing is the genuine realization of thena combination of what's a progressive interest of capitol in the progressive interest of the social revolutionaries they found this way to marry themselves to each other as it were in and through openness. it's taken place at a particular time and it's taking place at a moment when the visible inequality and the condition

that kristine describes in which ordinary people are now really essentially almost rendered incapable of achieving the basic goods of life with its marriage, family, owning a home, have anyt expectation having a decent job may be your kid has a better job than you might goes to better school than you might. that kind of american dream seems to be slipping away for those people. the very moment when that became clearly visible, what happened? the most elite institutions whether his corporations, private entities in my world the universities becomes the most egalitarian institutions in the world. the president of harvard university eliminating social clubs on the basis they foster inegalitarian spirit in harvard. which has an admissions rate of about 4%. notice this is a form of class

warfare if it were. woke -ism the weight elites in our society it is in that language and appearance in an effort to shroud the fact they are in the process of essentially using these institutions to government in ways that constitute a tyranny of progress. and to actuallyth dismiss complaints, concerns, and anxiety of those who are not in those institutions saying you are backwards. you have no standing in our society to make these complaints. you are representatives of the isms that we in these institutions represent the opposite of. among the things i attempt to do in the book is to offer an explanation for the rise of awoken us as a form of explanation of how the party or the despotism of progress is using this the marriage of a

revolutionary economic and it revolutionaries social set ofse commitments to advance its interests. it's doing what innocence every corrupt ruling classes ever done attempt to keep itself in power by whatever means necessary. this leaves me lastly to christine's challenging questions what prevents a successor ruling class the regime change from being self-interested? it isit for good reason was oftn working. the interest of that many in the interest of the few are likely to be ultimately reconcilable. we ought to aspire to make them what reconcilable. at least the argument in my book is the replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interest of ordinary people. how do we measure that?

we measure that for basic measures of social and human health. the things you were mentioning. are we connecting? are we forming communities in the form of families? or people able to have children and raise children? are we able to live in committees that are healthy y little in the sense of not having train wrecks. chemical spills in their towns and yards. but we know is the following. the pooror you are in this couny the more it member your of the working class if you'ree not living in washington d.c. in all likelihood the worse it is going for your life expectancy is dropping for the first time we know in american history in these parts of the country. this ought to be the topic of conversation for most on the lips of people working institutions like mine elite university you never hear it discussed it's 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 class that hasn't 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 were not wealthy. even if you did not have the right degree. to make that back into a public utility and here we will need the help of the private sector but will need the help of the civic center and yes will need the help of government. i think this should be in a sense the task and the role if this is regime changed its the task and role of a new elites i would hope would be a reflection of a genuine salutary form of a mixed regime a mixed constitution. >> were going to quit a few minutes of overtime since we have a very good conversation going here we willti try to fitn one or two questions of the audience at the end. so do give some thought to that.

let me turn to a second seam that came in patrick's remarks. senator vance it seems for many of the elite progress in america to them means leaving behind a great many americans you have written powerfully about this in your own books you have spoken about this on the campaign trail and as a senator. how do you bring the right kind of progress to ohio and to america as opposed to the divisive kind of progress patrick is discussing? >> is a very complicate a question of course. but one part of the solution is that if you look at most americans just want a better life materially is a big part of it cooperation between sexes, it's interesting the entire time she t was talking i am reminded every time i go and talk to a given group of conservatives in a college campus the cameras are off and it's a small group they will eventually start talkingab about how terrible dating is and

how miserable seemingly the men and women are in the each unique ways. obviously that's an important component of it. so for example one measure i think globalization is how many have wanted to the financial sector in the american continent back to 2007 and 2000 and about 25% of corporate profits rate for the financialhr crisis, thik about that. you are fundamentally taking american assets, offloading them to east asia or to central america that requires a much more robust financial sector than lending money to your neighbor down the street. has telling the peak of globalization which i hope was 2008 you have a massive massive concentration of corporate sector in the financial sector. you do not have nearly as much productivity growth. this is one area while patrick and wendell berry may be really worried about material progress

i am fundamentally a believer in higher productivity, hired standards of living i think that is compatible to get somewhat complicated with the social contract and social fabric that still fundamentally stable. but we have in the modern american economy is way way tooo much m of the so-called economic activity in financial, and globalization, in secondary and tertiary financial products thag have nothing to the underlying economy. but part of the answer is to actually invest capitol in real productive enterprises in our own country, that is a sort ofin thing that has rising standards of living that is compatible with solid social fabric. but how to get there of course is a very complicated story. i think you need to make fundamentally you need to make it much more profitable to invest in the united states of america much less profitable to invest overseas for. >> kristine, many people would say the sexual revolution is

where the key forms of progress we have s experience in the last century or so. everything from changes in terms of the rules of the sex network defect minimart work women work now and then had a century ago. the fact people are making a wider variety of choices sexually than before. these forms of progress are celebrated fight not only many left-wing and progressive institutions but millions of americans seem to have bought into the idea of a sexual revolution as a triumph of progress as well. your book is very interesting because you complicate that picture. in what way is the sexual revolution not a transfer progress or, perhaps a progress that may be again leaving behind people in ways that may be overlooked by the celebratory publicity the sexual revolution off often gets?

>> another great one. first we have to really think about what progress means. i think there are a couple different floating around the does good work dividing out his book. was described as a liberal ideal of a progress of progress simply means moving forward and human limitations in human knowledge to sunset or acknowledge moving faster breaking things in the setting to hiree placed. that is progress. or is it progress? i am not necessarily sure. there is certainly an ideal of having more understanding. the scientists understanding of the s human person they connect with each other to determine the course of our lives.

is that contribute to our mental and physical health? when it comes to the sexual revolution, is the progress just this idea of moving forward into a new thing until a new thing is but it's better than the old thing. improving the human person. actual movement toward flourishing. toward inclusion not away from, it. and under those lights, and that definition of progress you can see where the sexual revolution in some ways is gone off the rails. i will say at first.an have a very clear goal in mind for they wanted women to be respected and treated equally in society. seen as equal human beings to men. you have the same freedoms that

men did. that was a goal. that was an important white and we are still working toward that goal actually. i dol think you can see moments with the sexual revolution was co-opted by a different revolution for a revolution of this ideal and progress. it is not so much equality. what men andki women to flourish becoming kindly and gentler people together. y but we want to experiment it went to experiment, have as much opportunity, to have as much sex as possible for church write new attitudes, new performances, to escape consequences through technology. for the removal of norms that protected the majority of people in the past. and a well, the outcome is so we have today. the crowds of young people after

his talks. and of course as discussedel before the loneliness, the lack of relationship. the pain that so many people see. we need to be focusing more on progress that our acumen. a progress toward a goal. a progressgr toward the good. solution towards a betterno society. not just progress for progress' sake. or progress for economics sake. the idea of the sexual revolution spring women up freeing men up for more free time on their not working. i don't think that's progress. i also want to note these definitions of progress are often confused in criticisms of awoken us.

the phrase woke is used it's important things. even activists for people of color, for women complain about their movements been co-opted by capitol. but movement for progress. the progress of women being respected as much as men. progress thatua looks like a blk people being seen as equal to white people. those are important movements. they are not woke-ism. they're not just critical race theory which is maligned but mainly misunderstood it. .they actually do mean somethin. let's there to criticize when they are used by t elites to tun attention to their misdeeds.

it's actually wrong to ignore the real progress the human progress that is being made. [inaudible] >> i am 30 years old we have three kids under the age of six. we have a lot of young women with families in our. group. something i've seen it multiple multiple times from well-educated women are very oriented and focused on their career is they will have kids. they want some. where they can step back a little bit from their career and focus on their families. the incredible and immense social pressure applied to those 11 for just wanted to take maybe six months off from work and spend time with the new baby is incredible. if you bought into an idea it's liberating to leave a late week old baby to work 90 weeks at goldman sach's you have been had. all off us have been had a litte bit by that idea.

[applause] cracks that perfectly tees up but i wanted to ask kevin roberts.s. [laughter] you are the leader of a conservative think tank. a conservancy policy shop. yet there must bess forms of progress that heritage would like to embrace. how do you separate with the virtuous and good about progress including some of the points that christina brought up from the way in which a progress is lately been a deliberate move away from everything traditional about america. what is the right balance? >> that's a good question. and not at all to be flippant it's just going to be sustained. progress is exemplified by increase the dignity of human person. the example jd just mentioned for new moms or moms to be struggling with that, that would

be an example. where patrick is so right has been right for many years is reminding conservatives that whether in politics, policy, culture, society at large what we need to be focused on is the human person and on the community. those are some of the eternal things that conservatism has always been about at least since birth there's a long, long tradition in american history through the post-cold war era up to this day that maybe it's not as much as it once was a milk might be now. all that to say that heritage we also believe that in order to treat create the space in which individuals, communities, new institutions, reformlp institutions can help further progress but can help improve the dignity of the human personf we do have to get government out of the way. all jesting aside, whatever

metaphor we want to use with the bathtub. [laughter] i am a conservative not a libertarian. heritage is a conservative institution a modifier in front of it is redundant to say common good because conservatism is about the common good. i do not mean that to be a gratuitous and very grateful for what you're doing and you know that. it is to say this we have to step out of theory and philosophy left 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 that's the ministry. that is what is got to be drowned. [applause] 12:01 p.m. generate 2025 we have a conservative president whoever he or she is, heritage has no dog in that fight. maybe some beautiful dogs.

[laughter] very beautiful. courts of the in the bathtub? [laughter] the most beautiful. that person we hope will, as they are taking the oath of office, be grateful to this republic. be grateful to a conservative movement. not just heritaget i do not wht heritage to take credit for this for even though they had a role in it that the best most comprehensive project that's its on what? not just diminishing the scope and size of the administrative state which exemplifies what patrick and jd have said. that is the memes it to the ends of trade the end is self-governance. and that is what is standing in the way. i am just hopeful and i will conclude on this because i know you are looking at your watch, dan, that wherever we are, whatever tribe we are in the center right, the american

solidarity part of the democratic party, feminist, whatever tribe you are in that you realize we still have time to take back this country. please, wherever you are whatever books you like. whether you like heritage or not. when he went to water board or drowned of the government, do not despair. we have to be busy about all these things we are talking about. >> the last question for myself to be on standby will take a question or two from the audience so we conclude. patrick i want to turn back to you. not just on the theme of a progress but the idea of a mixed regime. one of the things that makes alexis de tocqueville's of brilliant is the fact he is living after a revolutionary age. francis had a revolution meant you had a restoration of monarchy. there are some forces and

restored france the month the monarchy to be much stronger. they want to be as powerful as it had been under louis the 14th for example. want to have a second french revolution and to have military folks who perhaps want napoleon bonaparte or his error, napoleon the third to come to power but when things and asked tocqueville brilliant is a mixture of old and new. revolutionary post and preet revolutionary. my question for you is america has had a cultural revolution. america has experienced these liberal transformations you hav discussed. is it the case that what you envision as a return to an earlier condition? or a post revolutionary condition one that has to combine the aspects of a liberal order to be described with the mixed regime you want to bring about? >> the subtitle of the book is a

post- liberal future. and that phrase or word with care and forethought. which is that it's simply not a going back for its audit effort to say in order to restore a better america we have to go back to 1950, or 1980, not sure with the period would be in early american history. [laughter] in other words there is no going back that way. but also we lived through the liberal revolution. kristine points out aspects of it that i thinkat certainly as a catholic i would regard it as good. you read the treatment of african slaves in this country and the treatment of the jim

crow world. maybe there people who want to go back. there's no wanting to go back to that kind of condition and i certainly don't. and here i would credit whether we describe ithe as a liberalism or the kind of realization of a more christian understanding of the idea of human dignity. certainly in my view there ought not to be any going back. but we should also noticed is that often these genuine achievements and the political cultural social order are framed in terms of the revolutionary it's framed the previous

existed. that it is a part of the recidivist world all of which has to be overcome and transcended. i am speaking to progress. the ideology of progress regards the past which preceded us as a time of darkness and ignorance, of superstition the black of mythas it's called. the black legend i think it's described as a time of ignorance. this ideology of progress is precisely among other things tocqueville feared would become dominant in america. it would make us ignorant of what the future might actually hold. in other words the ability to have a much more prudential

understanding of how it is we are to act in the world. where we use certain features of the government, private sectorr and so forth require us to bring to bear the past history without in some ways being dominated by it. not to be nostalgic.pr but at the same time not to be an ideological progressive at the time that needs to be overturned and overcome. part of the book i talked about the need of the post liberal future we sewed together time. sounds off likely theoretical and philosophical. it's a very practical purpose that we have the ability to understand the goods of the passes was a bad's of the past to see and assess those things. in order we can live responsibly into the future. the ideology of progress

relieves us of the responsibility of living responsibly into the future and thoughtfully into the future because we have head to the view the future will take care of itself. or a phrase one often hears you cannot stand in the way of progress. it renders us incapable, weak. and simply makes us powerless in the face or what is supposed that inevitability's and the interest of a genuine hue to meant freedom we have to haveig the capacity to say certain things we might regard as a change or transformation are going to be good. driverless trucks the goods that we once. are there simply things that are going to be inevitable or do we have the capacity to exercise judgment? it's the kind of ideology that makes it difficult to deliver

these kinds of questions. one good everyone will want is a copy of patrick's book little bit until after the event let's take a question from the audience. we'll go over there on the edge. please keep the questions brief sewing it wanted to end. professor you have been instrumental in my philosophical development. throughout the speech he painted liberalism as instability. as corrosive on social healthy social forms. on the other hand liberalism as stability admits pluralism. liberalism as the stable bulwark

against a threat off chaos. of a partisan picture of the good would take hold of american society. what do you take of this challenge and view post a post a liberalism or common goodso conservatism as answering the challenge to provide a stable future? >> a note were being very patient i will be very brief. you indicate youk, read to my previous work at temple he pointed to the last book white liberalism failed is the effort to show the claim that we can have a neutral or contentless liberal society was basically a myth and even a light. lie.of course it has content. we are seeing that content visibly before us. it's an enforced indifferentism. whether you are required not to care. you are required to have no judgment and if you have

judgment if you think something is right or wrong you are no longer permitted in polite conversation. it has a content and that content becomes dominant. in fact it becomes a form of the regime. we are in a situation is not a debate with content neutrality conceptions of the good that we have to debate over but we are in a situation we debate over conceptions of the good. i would rather be in that debate i would rather have conservatives however we describe ourselves in that debate not simply say we just want to live in a neutral society which is basically a fundamental disagreement that we basically just disagree. >> omega kristine and kevin an opportunity for a last word in response to that question are other thoughts that have occurred during tonight's discussion.at >> it's up to you actually pick rexall state ladies first. that's just the southern southen gentleman and meet. [laughter]

for sexual revolution. [laughter] works were eating away at the clock. i'll say two things the first of theti heart of the conservatisms gratitude. i am grateful to patrick for his career, for his work for his book written on the plane back from london by sight and enjoyed with 1000 times more things we agree on that we have differences of opinion on. i am most grateful for how you mentor your students. you personify what professors should be you or friend of the ayheritage foundation. we have differences of opinion and that is okay. my heart i would say this even if i was not the president of the heritage foundation. you need to tie to the public every single one of you in this room might take away personally from this conversation at the professor would agree with this, two ties to the republic to tithe to the post liberal regime

if that is 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 our time, talent, treasure to church society and nonprofits, don't get me wrong, that t might not be enough a lesson with the great lessons over the work patrick and others have done that isi always champions as we are in an era of needing to impose political power as conservatives. one of the ways we can do that a relatively cheerful daily way is to be part of its administrative state that will base color as a result of what you are doing. project 2025.org. [laughter] >> to the question very briefly i think i'll echo patrick and saying i'm not sure the differences between a liberalism

and total chaos. i think one of the most interesting things about the book that you will get to read is the description and whichha actually there are common norms, common sense having to sit across time and that contain some wisdom. chaos may not be written up it may not be political philosophy but there is knowledge their impact liberalism is standing directly in contrast to that. so that's the question. was a closing note one thing that should be mentioned. i think it's always under discussed the idea of a mixed constitution post liberal future of the mix is important. we spend a lot of time talking about elites and how elites must reform themselves. elites must have better ideas

how to run the country elites of this and elites have that. talking to an endowed professor at the head of a think tank. >> maybe as a result of this book i mites. [laughter] it's easy enough to gather and think about how we should fix the world and makett it better. how does it stay here. a real mixed constitution means moving out in the world. o not just moving from catholic university to the reception across the street to the popular bar on 14th street. but actually interacting with the people. with seeing those people as a valuable in their own rights. viewing them not as enemies because they're only what wrong political line or skin color or

belief system but actual members of the populace to have wisdom to share. who we are in community with and bound to serve. there is often a feeling of wanting within the elites to come up with a solution so we can help the people expecting false life expectancies whose lives are falling apart. let's come up with a good idea and give it to them. no we have to beat them in a sense and they are us. but a section where the most important things to remember in this movement as we talk about how to reform the regime. it has to be one that is inclusive and a real way. >> and very grateful to our panelists and to our audience i'm also very grateful to president who is the final thought for us. >> thank you. speakers and patrick and thank you for sponsoring the event the

less plug i have your first and foremost you to get a copy of patrick's book on the door. second, on the back of your program you will see the qr code in ad for isi homecoming weekend. this is two and half weeks from today at our beautiful 20-acre campus. we have a great time it's not just panels we have jazz band, we have oysters, we've got dancing. it is a fun time of community and friendship and we have great speakers including lee edwards h.w. brown, chris and we will be exploring the question of the great statesman artist and creators that have made this country. so please signrs up if you're under 30 years old it's only $50 an hour and 10 minute train ride from d.c. see you in two and half weeks and thanks again. [applause]

>> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work. citizens are truly informed the republic thrives get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capitol to wherever you are it's the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like c-span empowered by cable. ♪ c-span campaign 2020 for coverage as your front row seat to the presidential election watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now our free mobile video

app or any time online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ weekends on c-span2 our c-span2 artintellectual feasted. every saturday american history and on the sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes from these television companies and more including ♪ ♪. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ along with these television companies support as a public service.vl >> holds a charles all