of each citizen. because that government is not natural where burke is more okay with a monarchy because he believes that you have to have a government for the citizens. >> you want to comment on that? >> not bad. probably maybe gives payne a little more credit for organization than i would, but -- good. >> a lot of people talk about payne and -- sorry, about burke, and they try to figure out where he got a lot of his ideas and views from. and we had some readings of blackstone and some people would say some of the burke sthaut evolution offal is of blackstone. black stone is for all intents and purposes the major legal theorist. >> i would.

i have a small book of my grandfather's, my grandfather was a lawyer and when he was admitted to the bar the guy he read law with gave him a book on blackstone. the commentaries. >> blackstone codifies the common law tradition. and by this common law tradition he begins to develop the concept that rights are inherent in man and given by god, which burke then picks up. and the whole concept of tradition is really part of the common law tradition. same words. >> absolutely. as a matter of fact, there was a part in the lecture that we didn't get to because i was long winded, about the common law, and the common law which is peculiar to america and britain for the most part, is very consistent with burke's

philosophy. blackstone kind of said it all down and as you said, he had it out for burke. burke took it from there but the common law which developed instead of a statute that tells you what you may and may not do, the common law codifies, wrong word, puts in writing by way of decisions, what the current advance of society in particular relations is. >> remember, this is at odds with the napoleonic philosophy where the state is the author of the rights. the state is not the author of the rights. i mean, man has certain inherent rights given to him by god, and those rights become part of the tradition. that's a major difference. legal and political rights

become organized in a tradition. it's that legal tradition, that kind of reorganizes them. let's take some questions from you all here. questions please. go ahead. >> you talked about how we have a government set up to have gradual change over time, said to be slowly progressive. you think this slow progression the past 150 years has taken us too far away from our roots and now we're kind of snowballing into a time of state progression? >> i think any form of government that is, in fact, democratic, has within it the seeds of the possibility that you're going to go too far.

and i think that's where we are. i don't think it's -- if we are -- if we're true to burke, we're not going to go too far. we're going to realize that we can't outstrip tradition, history and experience. but clearly in any government where the majority rules, you can go too far. and that's the next step beyond when you look to the government for bread, if you get it you will always look to it for bread. that's how we got there. >> but keep in mind what mr. norcross said earlier, was that america, at least in the early days, looked back to payne, and payne does not find tradition important. as a matter of fact, he wants to start things de novo. there is this tension between

burke, thought, and the thought of payne. question. >> today we try to export democracy to other countries but one of the things that you said about conservatism, based off of our traditions and our history and what we developed. do you believe that's one of the problems that we have exporting democracy to other countries, is because it's not rooted in their traditions and their history? >> absolutely. i was called upon tunisia, nigeria and russia to try to give advice and how to develop political parties. and nigeria, well, both nigeria and tunisia the question was they wanted plitle ka parties but they didn't want opposition. and political parties are perforce made up of the government and opposition. so when you have a tradition

that doesn't accept opposition, then it's difficult for us to export our democracy to them. which doesn't mean we shouldn't try. but my view is that they are going to have to go through a long period of trial and error, hopefully not as long as britain did, before they get there. yeah, you can't pick it up and put it there, burke nailed it. the tradition isn't there, the history isn't there. and the experience isn't there. good question. >> in what you mentioned earlier you brought up the arab spring, and in relation to burke or un-relation to burke, would you say tunisia is a closer relation to burke's ideals than many of what has happened in many of the other countries that was part of that movement due to they deposed one leader but they more or less kept a form of

government that was similar, they -- >> who is they? >> the transitional government there. >> i don't -- i don't really know what they are. i mean, they may be -- you're right, they may be trying to provide that bridge to tradition. arab spring i think i i said this all of the countries engaged in the arab spring have an enormous problem with religion because they need religion to be in the box, it cannot be the government, the revolution, and that's hard. our tradition found that difficult. henry the 8th, it was out of the box. >> mr. norcross went on to say about throwing out payne wants to throw the baby without the

bath water. he does that but he does that because he believes in trying to establish a utopian society. >> i meant to do that, excuse me, i meant to answer payne. payne might love the arab spring. >> but burke goes on to say when you do throw out tradition, tyranny comes. >> and payne would say, didn't come to us. >> that's exactly right. >> and if you -- but payne would go a step further. if you do believe on the inherent rights granted by god to man, and discoverable through nature, that that won't happen. but that's the issue. >> it's a leap. >> you had a question. >> i found it interesting that when you mentioned that burke

advocated progress because today, when we hear the term progress, progressives in politics, we don't think of people like edmund burke. >> you may have noticed that i slipped and said progressives once when i said progress. >> maybe i'm just throwing that out there. but would you say that you know, progressives today who advocate the course of action that they do, do you think it's divorced from history and experience? >> yeah. well, the progressives have named themselves progressives because the word is less inflammatory than liberal has become. but there is really not much difference. the progressives, if the progressives were willing to

move forward slowly, to progress with some attention to history, tradition and experience, then i would have no quarrel with it. and neither would burke because burke was certainly not anti-progress. where the question becomes critical is at what point, well, let's just pick obama care. is that progressive, is that within the bounds of our history, tradition and experience or is that too much? and obviously we have two very vigorous sides to that question. but you've put your finger on it. when is too much progress bad? when it's too fast is the glib answer to that. but it is glib. >> i'm going to switch a little

bit to another topic. property rights. how do property rights fit into all of this? my property, your property. how does this fit into this. where does burke, pain, come down on those particular -- on that issue. anybody have any ideas? you mentioned -- mr. stewart. >> property rights are key in the liberty because property gives the power in relation to the government. without property you do not have necessarily liberties guaranteed to you without the right to possess it. >> burke was one of the few things that burke wanted government to have a role in economics was for the protection of property. i thought it was i guess the key to maintaining that. >> yes. >> burke mentions the idea

having hereditary property as turning selfishness and greed into a virtue which i thought was an interesting way to think about it. being able to secure property and pass it on to who they wish to pass it onto, that was a way of taking some of the ingredients and turning it into a good for society which seem as basis for -- the difference i see between payne and burke comes down to what they think about the nature of the human being or where as burke would consider man infallible, would consider man able to be the best possible option. >> you think payne cared? >> about? >> whether man was fallible or infallible? did he hook beyond creating the opportunity for something new? i don't know the answer to this.

>> i don't know. i think -- yeah. he definitely seemed to care -- payne mentions property rights in the rights of man but it's interesting because he views the natural rights of man's rights in the institution as a threat to those rights, where for burke, man is the threat to those rights and the institutions are what -- >> i would suggest, however, starting with blackstone, burke and pain they affirm the natural limitations of the state. if you go all the way back, they are affirming the natural limitations of the state. there is a fundamental -- this is a property rights issue, so i think they are refirming the limitation of the state by property rights.

>> no, i don't have a quarrel with that. >> yes. >> i think that looking at the way that payne did, trying to answer your question, the way he approached it he'd have to consider for man to be able to set up government because the way he looked at it government was created through men coming together. so in essence i would say it was good where burke would say th that -- all the way back to what you were talking about as far as religion goes. if you take religion into account. payne was all with kind of throwing the religion out with everything else as we saw in the french revolution and again, the social contract. that's one of the reasons why he felt that government was essential in keeping government going. they came out over time because

they were given to us by god. >> i agree with that. good answer. >> questions. yes, sir. >> you said the american civil war was a failed revolution of sorts. could you elaborate on that? >> in honor of my wife. or the war between the states. did i call it the civil war? >> yes. >> well, if you look at -- i was looking at the civil war as a serious upheaval. and then looking at what happened as a result of it. the question about the bad feelings, no question about how long they lasted. but it was a serious upheaval. it was in many way as revolution

by the confederate states. against the united states. and yet, as disastrous as that war was, both to commerce and people, particularly in the confederacy, we came through that reasonably well. i admit that there was years of bad feelings, but we were -- we were one government. we fought the first world war twog, we fought the second world war together. and that seems to me says something about burke and principles. they were the same institution. the institution of slavery, sthaet aside, the confederate states set up a government just like the united states so the history, tradition, experience

save for the issue of savely all pretty much the same. which is how we came through it without it turning into a french revolution. i don't think had the result been different, i guess you should talk to it new about his book, i haven't read it. i don't think if the results were different that the two countries would have been antagonists for very long. spoken as a yankee who lives in virginia and has for a while. >> now lives in. >> i said who lives in. >> i thought you were from new jersey. >> i'm from virginia, sir. that's why i said confederacy carefully. >> next question. yes, sir. >> while we're on the topic of the civil war, would you consider the reconstruction period that we went into after that agreeing with burke's philosophy, some of the lasting

effects from that period still impact the efficiency of our government to this day. >> yeah they do. badly. negatively. if you read the book on the anatomy of revolution t reconstruction seems to me was what he calls thermodoor, when things begin to return to some degree of normalcy, i don't think burke would have looked very kindly on the reconstruction. i don't think lincoln would have looked kindly on the reconstruction. i would use that as further proof that our principles, our burke principles, helped us survive not only the war but the

reconstruction. no, i give the reconstruction, french revolution bad grades. wasn't nearly that bad and there is another measure but not nearly as bad as the period after the french revolution. but certainly not positive and i don't think anything we ought to be proud of. >> next question. yes, sir. >> payne in common sense he writes government like dress is the badge of lost innocence, p palaces of kings are built on the ruins of paradise. and you could kind of tie that with how burke says any government is better than no government. with payne, he says government like dress it's necessary. do you think that necessary view of government i guess is a stark contrast from the libertarian branch of thought. is that a reflection of their

attitude of man, that -- >> by the way, we'll have a class devoted to libertarian thought. we'll have the head of the institute, and i hope you'll ask him that question. please. i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> do you think you know, their view of government is really an outgrowth of their view of man where i guess, you know, the impulses of conscience, payne writes for if the impulses of conscious were clear, uniform, man would need no other law giver. kind of saying that man is infallible. >> you want me to parse necessary. what did he mean by necessary. the quote that you just offered of payne, i think distinguishes him from burke.

burke starts with the notion that government is what keeps in line man so that man has the opportunity for improvement. payne, i think, he take as more grudging view of government's organizing and controlling than burke does. which figures because burke wanted to progress, burke didn't want tuesday be free of england. payne wanted to throw the bomb. change. and if you do that, you've got to have some realization that something else has to follow so i think he had -- he certainly was not opposed to any kind of government. certainly wasn't much in favor of a centralized executive, but he would have centralized power

in one great legislature, which looks a lot like france. you can tell i'm mistrustful of payne. >> based upon the arab spring, how should -- how would you like to have seen that go. what should america's role be in it? a big question. >> if we were in a debate and i was looking for an answer that would please the crowd i would say i have absolutely no idea. i really don't -- you know, there were people criticizing obama for what he did in tunisia, what he didn't do in egypt, not doing in syria. i don't know what the answer is. i came at it from a very negative perspective having spent, as you know, a fair amount of time in the middle east. and being mindful of the fact that they do not have our

traditions for us to export. i'm not -- i think i come down on the side of you watch and see what they make of it. >> if we go to iraq -- we wiped out the entire baath party. the party that was ruling the country. >> might not have been a good idea. >> i think we're now finding out that some of the people who made those decisions are actually questioning their own decisions in having done that. because by doing that they wiped out an infrastructure and a tradition within that country, burke and payne to some extent too. question is what are we doing now? have we learned from that? can we apply those burkeon principles, can we apply them to what's going on in the arab spring today? >> i don't think so. and that's what's so

frustrating. they lack any of the structure and tradition and history and experience that we have in a form of government. they just -- they simply haven't experienced that. >> let's look at afghanistan. really tough place to be. i've had friends there, i've been this. when you look at afghanistan you're looking at the taliban which have a very strong tradition, very strong base. and we have been trying to establish a government over them with no strong tradition, with no strong base, with no legal system that's grown up over decades. and that, i pose to you, is one of the serious problems with

trying to bring peace to that particular country. i think some of those same lessons apply to what's going on today in other places in the arab world. >> absolutely. no doubt. and they, in turn, and i think i touched on this, forget us for the moment. they, in turn, in trying to build a government of free men and women, don't have the tradition or experience to do it. they can look to us but they can only make that a part of what they are trying to do. they really have got to do it on their own. the only thing we can provide and you have to do this very carefully, is the opportunity for them to have the time to do this. without picking sides.

>> hard not to pick sides. >> may not be possible. >> as you so well put it. i know you have been a strong critic of president obama but in that case he was dammed if he did and if he didn't. >> i agree. >> so even though we're a critic in that case it's a tough one. we've got time for a couple more. two more questions. yes, sir. >> in talking about the arab spring, afghanistan, iraq, is it possible to take conservative philosophy and insert it into their government? burke says bad governments better than no government. there is long standing tradition in the middle east but it's misdirected compared to our democracy. sharia law is a twist off of the ten commandments.

is it possible to take that tradition, that experience, and build saudi arabia has done a good job at it. and they have what most consider good government by the definition of good government. is it possible to use that as the courting point and that experience to help these governments out? >> well, i'm tempted to say if you can get from henry the 8th to barack obama you can do it. but i trip -- my western sensebuilts and senses of man and woman as i see them trip over sharia law. i can't -- yes, i suppose the absolutely objective answer is yes, you can get from there to here and that at some point you know, we didn't give women the

vote until about 125 years ago. so yeah i guess they can get from here to that. my question is whether the religion wants them to get from here to there and in burke it's a huge part and in fact part of their tradition with which they struggle. look at turkey. turkey made enormous progress by secularizing its soxt yet i stood here and derailed american society. you can't tell everybody always the right thing to do. >> speaking within the confines of america, i found it interesting you were talking about the move, the secular shift and when religion gets

taken out what do we replace it with. if there is some necessary component in society that religion provides and once you get rid of religion it has to be replaced with something. how would you answer someone who suggested we replaced it with some sort of secular humanism where we as individuals hold the answers and can look nowhere to ours. >> that's the right response. and that is a response that russo and the romantics would love. i don't think it works. i mean, i don't think this's sufficient discipline in that substitute for to the truly substitute for religion in our society. but that's the logical questions