dollars and $0.50 an hour to do the laundry. now, he does not fold. he just puts it in the button, moves it, hits the. so i do a little whiteboard in the book showing that, you know, paul tried to negotiate for a raise. and i did a little for him. and i was like, let's see one minute, dump it in one minute, put the detergent. and i added it up and paul's making 1875 an hour to do this laundry. and i said, paul, do you that there are people out and dangerous and dirty and difficult jobs making $7.50 an hour. you are not getting a raise in 1875. and he said you should raise the minimum wage. and i was like he's right. he's right. i should raise the minimum wage. but his solution was that i got to solve the of workers not making so that he could then be in a stronger position negotiate. you should have turned and you

just go white boy yeah boy bam. so now you want to run for the senate -- thing saying. senator feinstein's going to move. we're not sure what the timing of that will be. whether she's going to be there for the of her term. do you think is she stepping aside? i know. had some illness recently. yeah. she got shingles which are very painful and terrible. so she's been out for the last few weeks. i don't know her exact timeline on returning, but she has already announced that she won't for reelection. right. so her time in the senate, whether she continues all the way up to the end of her term or she makes the decision to to step down sooner, i am absolutely know. i bought the ticket. i'm taking the ride. i'm in it to win it. and i think campaign the senate campaign is so important for california. we really need to a conversation about what we want from our federal government and what do

we want from our leaders and how do we think about how to position california to to push the nation to to be better and to do better. how can california lead and how can we get federal attention on some of the problems we're facing. and so i think the senate race is about our kind of toughest fighter. washington and i would be proud to have that opportunity and i'm ready to get to work better. yeah. i mean talk about the federal level of course should be fighting for how tough is it at the federal level to stop some of the things happening to me i think one of the worst things going on now is this whole. i'll call it the abortion debacle is when i'll call it the abortion mishegoss. i think repealing roe v wade was of the worst things ever. it's just such to me. it's just a complete disrespect for women having agency over

their bodies when it comes to that. i just think it's terrible. but what's happening in the states even worse, it seems like this is like a that's starting. is there anything that can be done at the federal level? maybe in a role of senator to i mean, with states rights and play and all that stuff? you do anything? yep. so what the supreme court did in the dubs is overturn, which said that there is a constitutional to an abortion. so there's no longer under a constitutional protection for abortion that doesn't mean there cannot be a federal right to it. that is given to us all by congress. so we don't need to. i mean, while would really like to mix up the supreme court we don't need to wait for that to restore everybody's freedom to make their own decisions about when and if to start a family. we can do that. passing a law in congress that guarantees the right to an abortion at the federal level.

and you know, we had the majority in in congress last you know until until january and we did not get this across the finish line and we passed it the house it was congresswoman judy chu here from l.a., who's bill the women's patient protection act. we passed it in the house. we had that democratic majority and we sent it over to the senate. where lately good ideas have gone to die. and they didn't take it up. and so they you know, they hide behind filibuster. why do you think they didn't pick it up? i think because there's got to be a reason. i mean, for something like that, it's not like, oh, it's a diversity. okay. what's this? that? no, no, no. that's huge. yeah. so i think there's two reasons. one is the the continued kind of fealty to the filibuster, which is an an institution, a rule, that if it ever served a purpose, it longer does. and what the filibusters doing today is allowing senators to avoid having to take votes and show their constituents exactly where they stand.

and so anybody who thinks, well, this vote might not make everybody happy can can just basically a hold on it and cancel the vote. and i think the reality is, even if we had gotten the filibuster, i don't know that we had 51 votes. i don't that senator manchin would have would have taken this vote. and so i think this is why it's really important that we that we get if we get the right 50 and we get to 51, and then we we rid of the filibuster in the senate needs to start doing its job which is you know traditionally it's been the last line of defense for our democracy will we ever see supermajorities the senate again like a 60 seat senate that of thing. are those days over? i think those days are not coming soon. i wouldn't say never. i think it's very, very unclear. the republican party goes from here. how they rebuild. i think they're going to lose in 24. and i think that biden has more. joe biden has, more affirmative

achievements to on than any president. recent history. this is somebody who was just so many accomplishments bringing down the cost of insulin, bipartisan infrastructure law is so many things to run on and. so i think the question is what republicans do post this loss in 2024. and i think if they if they continue down this path of extremism, if they continue down this path of hate, i think they're going to continue to lose younger voters who, by the way pretty quickly become middle age voters who pretty quickly. right. so there's there's not a growth path for them unless they rethink their their party's values. so we could see getting to a supermajority, but a tremendous cost. right. well, let me ask you an uncomfortable question on that do is president biden do you see connecting for this i mean i know you have cbs and everything but i. i'm trying to figure out how to

ask this properly because i do want be respectful. i do like president biden. i mean, i think he's very old right now in a way. let me say let me say properly, in a way that is not conducive to running for office, let's say, because running for office has a different metric than governing. you know, running for office is a lot about, you know, the sheen you know, i mean, kennedy won the debate on television. nixon won it on the radio. you know, that's part of running for office, you know, a real vibrant young republican candidate against biden, you know, i mean vibrantly crazy. but i mean, look, america has has not proven that they will not vote for. that's right. that's right. yeah. so when you say this, i mean, think that the sort of it's interesting to hear try to craft the question. let me let you in on a little. is the mofo too old? that's that president biden knows that he's old, less

secret. he's aware. he knows he's old. like we don't have to tiptoe around that. the man the man has, you know, he has birthdays like the rest of us. he knows how old he. and so, look, his campaign thing, every president's campaign looks a little different. i mean, i remember clinton? i grew up in iowa so i've seen all of these yahoos make their passes through iowa and they all have their own style. they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. president biden is not going to campaign in the same way that his strengths are, interpersonal, his strengths are his compassion, his ability to kind of not take a lot of the partizan bait, but instead talk about what matters to america his strengths are getting -- done. and so i think he's got a lot strength to run on. but you know, he's, he's not going run the same campaign that president obama ran. but to be clear. let me give you an example, president. i went to a women's history

month thing at the white house last month and president biden said something that has really stayed with me. president biden has appointed more black women, federal judges than every prior american president put together. yeah, right. so right. president obama, including the supreme courts. president obama was, you know, he could fill the stadium and president obama really struggled to get judges appointed. so i think each of these people is their own people. and as we think about who comes after president biden, i think we'll be thinking about what we need from our party, what do we need to do and grow our so, you know, i think he's got a lot of issues where i really do see him connecting with younger voters. child care is one of them. student loan debt to three years of community college. i think he has a lot to say to younger voters, but he's probably not going to say it on. okay. well, did you say tic tac? i saw that.

yeah, i'm just he goes off and starts talking corn pipe and things like that and starts smelling people's hair and it's like, joe, joe, stop and chew. no, no. i will say i have had many chances to interact with the president and, you know, i was a co-chair of the elizabeth warren campaign. so, you know, i was on another team right, at least for a while. and i had a lot of these jokes. then i have i am really, really that impressed with president biden. and, you know, my daughter, betsy, who's 13, has had chance to meet the president. and she is a superfan. and this is like the real definition of younger voters. she won't even make it in time him. so i think we stand with him, we help him, we knock doors, we help connect with young people for him. but i feel really, really good about his chances and about him are democrats united right now. we've always felt that they have seemed to have been divided a

lot particularly in biden's first year. you know, the all the resistance to that bill like i remember it was was between the democrats, you know. yeah. all the fighting about it, you know, where is the party right now? yeah, i think everyone's united behind biden. they think it's because he has delivered on so many priorities and on the ones that he hasn't gotten done two, four years of community college child, for example. he is clear that that work remains and then he's committed to doing it. so i think that we are very united behind biden. i think we're eager to see him reelected. we're eager to retake the house so we can go back to getting things done and to have a senate that actually passes the bills that the democratic sends them. and so i feel really good about our prospects that you mentioned that debate about the sort of democratic infighting right. you know, some of that is and this is really goes to the title of the book politics is messy or that my minivan, which is not

clean, is that some of that tension democrats is healthy and is normal and think we all sort of want this to be seamless and easy but if it's seamless and easy we're we're actually not doing by house were people thought about democracy looks like and so i think that some of that tension was healthy and the goal was we wanted to make sure the president got his agenda passed right both the bipartisan infrastructure law and the stuff and build back better. and so we were trying to sequence in a way where we felt like if we passed a bipartisan infrastructure law first, some of our democratic colleagues won't be there for us to pass the build back. better act, won't be there for us on issues like child and climate and other things. and yes, i'm talking about joe manchin and him out of my podcast. anyway. what would you say are the dems biggest vulnerability and do you see yourself running for senate

for senator as a way to, you know, up some of those vulnerabilities, maybe with some of ideas of. yeah, yeah. democrats need to understand that it is going to be enough. it ever was. it is not going to be enough going forward. simply say the two things that we're very good saying. i'm a democrat and i'm better than that guy that that's not enough here. and i think one of the things about trump was that it was very easy for democrats to kind say, like, we're not trump. right. and i mean, low bar, low bar right. and so as we look at people who are registering to vote and younger people new voters may be immigrants, people who are citizens, they are increasingly registering as no party preference, as independents, really. and not they're not registering as no party preference voters because. they're unsure what they believe they are registering is no party

preference because they are concerned that neither is really fighting for. they're concerned about who take corporate pac money. they're concerned about democratic congress. that will not pass ban on congressional stock trading. and so i think we have to really invest in delivering for people and rebuilding trust in government and we have real work to do as democrats and that's because i share the values of the democratic party that i want to see us grow that party to be able to reach out to younger voters. so, you know, i said jokingly at an event the other day to one of my democratic colleagues, i said, you know, what do you think about the democratic platform on housing? and he laughed and he said, yeah, we don't have one. so this is the number one issue that people care about right now, not just in california, but actually across country. so we do have work to as a party. i think we have a great job of motivating, engaging young to turn out because things of

donald trump abortion being on the ballot, lgbtq rights, trans rights being under attacked. but we have to keep those folks trusting that democrats will fight for them. mm hmm. has it been different with pelosi handing off the baton to hakeem? yeah, i think leader has their own style. each leader has their own style. i think, you know, speaker pelosi had kind of strong long, strict mom vibes and i think that was great. you know that was important. that's how she heard it all. of us to to come together and to vote bills. i mean, you know, people someone to me once like you're fearless and i, i thought myself should i tell them that i once hid in the women's bathroom after taking a vote so the speaker couldn't find me. i mean, and when i went in there by way, there were other people hiding. there was a whole little group of us hiding in the women's bathroom and which, of course, she can come in and find.

we could have hidden the men's and but so i think that, you know, each leader has their strength. i think speaker pelosi was really good at kind of creating that that voting discipline and keeping everyone, you know, this is what we're going to do. and you're to get in the boat and we're all going to point this, i think hakeem is a really gifted communicator. think he's a very naturally comfortable communicator. he's from a different part of the country is from new york is the first black speaker. and so i think they both have different things. the house definitely feels different with a key man in charge instead of nancy. and i think, you know, people have their different preferences. but i think that that transition is very, very healthy and democrats need to have confidence in this next generation of leaders and this next generation of leaders needs to earn our confidence for sure. that's a fact. well, i think we're going to get to questions pretty soon. but before we do, we'll just do like, well, i call this a lightning round quick lightning round. and i only do a little bit

differently. actually, i've never done it. so this is the first time. so think about i'm like, how am i doing different? but since you're single mom, right? single. there's a term. yeah, no, i'm going to give you some statements here and going to either swipe left or swipe right. it's okay. swipe left. no disagree or swipe right. that sounds good. you know, or you agree with it. okay. there is a real benefit to both partizanship bi partizanship is good swipe left or swipe right? swipe right. bipartisanship is good because it often reflects that the american people feel bipartisanship is good when when it reflects that the american people share a set of values. okay, so we have bipartisanship because a bunch of people, washington, want to cover their --. that is not that's that's swipe left when we have bipartisanship because literally everybody that our bridges shouldn't crumble that is really positive thing. it is easier to succeed and to

govern and to thrive. if you have less disagreement. so if we can get to that bipartisanship, compromising core values, that's positive is the hardest thing. the things are added unto those bills, though, from especially from the extreme factions of any particular party. oh, i mean, look who is getting harder and harder and harder in my five years in congress is harder and harder to find. republicans that one can actually collaborate, communicate with, feel safe in an elevator with. i mean, it's getting tougher. and so that i is a real problem. and i think when we talk about gerrymandering and we talk about sort of how boundaries are drawn for districts, we're often really really focused on how this might make it harder to elect a democrat. for example. that's true. but it also really gerrymandered districts also mean that the the republicans get more crazy. right? right.

so you have people who represent, you know, the most democratic districts and those people more and more. and so i think it's it's good to be able to communicate with americans, republicans, democrats and independents. i don't share the value of all of my constituents. i represent orange county, but i have to be able to communicate with all of them. i have to be able to listen respectfully to all of them. so yeah, i would say yeah, okay. marjorie taylor greene is the craziest person in congress that is like batshit crazy. left to swipe right, swipe right. ooh swipe right. i need she is a different category i have to say. okay please tell us everything you know the no i mean look, don't leave anything out. my basic my basic rule about marjorie is like how far is far enough for the personal safety threshold? again, it was a there was an atm is what i was a scout. i was scout leader.

and when you teach the kids how to use the pocket knife you have something called the circle and the idea is, you know, could the knife cut anybody? and that's how i think about marjorie. i don't go in her in her. i mean, she's she's she's a lot. she's a lot. and she's not very functional she's not very effective. there are republicans i strongly disagree with who like i have constant battles with graves from louisiana. like basically, you know mr. fossil fuel but you don't care. it's not of like he i he's weak. i just disagree. with him like truly doctor. i mean i mean, i think a different a different level. a different a different beast. i agree. i agree. will the tangerine idi amin the orange julius caesar is i come actually go to prison swiping left or swiping on there.

i would say probably not as much as that hurts my swiping left. that's not my that's not what i want. i'm telling you what i think is going to happen. yeah, i, i agree with you about that. the wheels of justice turn slowly. he's also by way old and joe biden from the homeowner doesn't know what. it doesn't know that oh that fast food is keeping him. i thought i'd say kfc is like propping him up. yeah. so i don't. so i, i am not certain that we will see that. i agree with him now. i do think. you know, i think these state charges, you know, i think they'll pursue the head and i think there could be more state charges we don't really know where the federal charges or if they're ever going to come. we've been waiting awfully long time. yeah. so as you know, i think it was important for the january six commission to do its work they took two full years to do it and consequence of that is and all

the doj is taking and you know, four months and counting and so i think the longer we wait and the closer get to the presidential election, we're going to we're going to defeat donald trump and. just not sure that it's going to be by incarcerating him rather than just beating him. the old fashioned way. and that's know, that's not satisfying. but realistically, look, i mean, i spent my career watching, you know, wall street bankers, but i watched them take the world economy and then get in there yet. yeah so people get away with things. people get away with things. and i think it's a real problem for our government. accountability and more oversight is needed. but yeah, i think it's going to be know trump's going to have very good lawyers and he's going to stall. and i think it's going to take a lot to to put him away. and it's going to be beautiful. yeah, okay, last one. president katie porter are you swiping left? are you like are you swiping

love? are you trying to swipe. no, on this one. i'm very. where's going. i need some some tea that i can throw you. yeah. yeah. no, i am i am very focused. on becoming senator. katie porter and could you know, i, i think of the things that i was important to in the book was to try to be honest about how i what i thought, congress would be like, what it was really like, what i learned some of the folks who, you know, the guy told me to be vote 218 and i was like, are right. i'm going to be katie porter not. 218 but but there's work to be there's learning to be done. and so i'm just so excited about being to engage more in the state, to more to hear more california voices, to solve more problems, to be a vibrant fighter for california, the senate, and to help us win. by the way, in every part and pocket of california and this country, california needs to have a senator who knows how win

tough races, who knows how to win. you can send me to montana. i was a nine year years. send commitment in a for jon tester i'm there i showed pigs i'm ready jon right me to ohio for sherrod brown to talk about what predatory lending and payday lending does to gut the prospects of communities of color and people of color to build wealth. so i'm really committed to making sure that i become a senator and as senator that i deliver a durable majority for democrats for years come. but they're going, all right, fabulous. so we take some questions from the audience. yes, it is time to take questions from audience. just a quick reminder around here. questions typically begin with a w or an h, sometimes a d, they are generally short. there is no such thing as a two part question. and tonight only larry wilmore gets to ask follow up questions. oh, very.

yes. i'm from west hollywood. and you have two very excellent competitors in senate race. we have to acknowledge that there may be more. we know. how is it that you better prepared to be than are the two? so both adam schiff and barbara lee. terrific. and we should be we should say that about each other as much as we can, because we all three have made important contributions and all three of us are, i think, terrific californians. and so i'm honored be in a race with them. i think thing that i can bring to job that's different about me is what i was talking about at the end. i know how to win possible vote when you knock doors in huntington beach, you can do and. and so i think when i think how are we going to win back the house is no path to doing that. that doesn't involve winning tough seats in california. and we need someone at the top

of the party, at the top of the ticket who will see things, will message and who will engage who makes it easier for everybody? win down ballot here in california. but also those senate and house races across the country. i think the other thing is look, i, i would say this in the book i didn't go to washington to follow the rules. i went to washington to rewrite them because the way that we've always done things in washington is not getting what they need. sometimes and so i'm the only person in this race who has never taken corporate pac money. i am the only person in this race does not take federal lobbyist money and for me that is about demonstrating to folks that they count on me to fight and push for them. and so, you know, i think that is going to be a big issue it's about rebuilding trust in government. so folks have seen me go toe toe with big pharma as exposing why prescription drugs are so

expensive. and the answer is because they're lining their own pockets as executive, they have seen me push the director of the cdc to make covid testing free. right. and that actually happened. and we all began to be able get some covid testing. so i think i have my own particular skill set. adam and barbara have theirs. this is going to be robust and amazing race for california that if we do it right, it's going energize our whole state and help us rebuild party for years to come. do you. yeah that. do you feel like you'll not be fighting for votes but kind of fighting establishment running against someone like adam schiff and beverly? yeah. i mean, look, they they both then they combined they've been in congress about 50 years. and i bet there five. so it's not good or bad. it's just different. and i think it's up to voters to decide how they weigh those different things and i think that, you know, one of the things that i talk about a lot when we talk about diverse leadership and representation is

that includes multigenerational. so i think that it is important to have people in congress in the senate, the house who have been there for generations. and it is important to have people who are relatively and it's that mix and that synergy that i think produces the most productive and representative and responsive congress we can have. there is an establishment in washington, and i am not part of it and i'm okay with that. yeah, i mean, i have friends. yeah. and then i have colleagues and i think true for a lot of us and some of my friends are, my colleagues, but i didn't go to washington to to kind of curry favor become the darling of the lobbyists cheese. you know this cheese cube reception like i'm not there that i am there to get things done and i am there to to hold people, powerful people to account and. so, yeah, i think i think that's probably right. i mean, some people have said to me, well, you know i've known adam for 35 years. i was was 14 then. so we're just different, right.

and, you know, some people have said to me, we need more black women in the senate. to which i say a man we do. and so for people that's going to mean voting for barbara lee. some people have said we're not making any progress on growing the number of women we're still at half what representation would look like. so i think everybody's going to have different factors and things that they weigh. but i think what really stands out for me is the willingness to stand up to powerful corporations, to fight for ordinary families, and the ability to win tough races and communicate across party lines without ever compromising my values. i'll give you that to i'll give you a quick tip of how to answer the question. we know we're black women in the senate. i agree with your sister. you know, if you could state for that. yeah. you just go we really we need more latino women. we mean indigenous women, right? i mean, we need more women, period. and we need people most of all, whoever they are, who will fight for what black families, black

women need. because for too long there, needs have been ignored by the establishment in washington. and i spent a lot of my career fighting predatory lending, fighting to make sure that health care is more affordable, fighting to make sure that childcare workers paid a livable wage. so it's about getting things done for for black women and for people of color. and we should all be very committed to that project that so i. katie oh, i'm sorry, i. katie i think you may have already answered original question since you i originally was going to ask what is your what is your strategy to win so you already kind of answered that but then i guess i'd do a follow question is i recently heard something on the case here w the local npr station. they were talking about gavin newsom might be able to appoint someone if if it comes up and it didn't sound favorable for you to get that. and then of course, if someone gets appointed, they kind of have a leg up.

so i'm not sure what we can do to you to to win. you forget about knocking off senator feinstein. no, no, no but i think there is some version of gavin newsom. i be able to appoint someone if she. so let me just let me this is how i always try to answer questions. let me just start with the facts that we all are on the same page and we all know this works in california when there is a senate vacancy, the governor makes an appointment and we all just saw happen which is kamala harris our vice president and newsom appointed alex padilla and senator patty is serving he served out the rest of senator harris's term and then he ran for reelection and won. and so now he's going to serve out a full six year term. so if senator feinstein were to not her term through the end, 2024, then governor newsom would be able to appoint someone

governor newsom publicly promised on tv about two years ago that if there was another vacancy that would appoint a black woman and look, i think politicians should keep their promises. that's gavin's promise. i think he should probably keep it. i think i what i will say you is i think that all of us who to be senator should run and. i think actually senator feinstein herself said this. anybody who wants to throw their hat in the ring and run to be california senator and can earn those votes and do the work should do it. and so whether there's an appointment or not. senator feinstein, i very much hope she recovers and comes back and is a full. but whatever happens, i'm going to stay this race. i'm i'm running to win this right. yeah i'm a super fan i knocked on doors in orange county for you this past. but i'm one of those voters who to see more black men women in

the senate. so i'd like to hear your thoughts on the the racial injustice and, lack of racial equity in the country but specifically maybe commenting on what's going on tennessee right now on gun violence and as an issue that affects communities of color disproportionately and on the racism that is so blatant that we're all witnessing. you have a lot in that question. so for so for so many these issues, the answer is that we need to have the votes get the the laws passed so with what's happening with gun violence prevention is we simply do not people said to me why doesn't congress pass gun violence prevention? and the answer is because we have too many people in congress who will not vote for it. i'm not trying to make it too simple that that really is the problem we have a lot of people who refuse to vote for gun violence prevention and they go back home and they campaign and

they get reelected. and we need to change that. so i think one of the things that i can i can to the table is i know how to campaign. i said this before, know how to campaign in a way that's going to help us win some of those tough seats and we win more of those tough seats. we can deliver on the very priorities that communities of color, particularly. and so if we let the republicans stay in the majority, if we allow california to become kind of the national boogeyman for the democratic party, then we're not going to have a majority. we're not going to win the majorities that we need in the house and senate to deliver. i was sitting in the house, i was elected with so many amazing colleagues from 2018. i cannot wait to see some of these folks who are my dear friends, folks like ayanna and lauren underwood and lisa blunt, rochester and joni goose. there are so many amazing folks who i think that we going to diversify our congress. we are going to have the kind of diverse representation that we need. and i'm all in for helping those

people there. but go, hi, my name sara. i'm in actually in orange county. i have two separate questions on a two part question. so. one of them is a freebie. so worry. the first question is you said politics like an insane mess. so i wonder how you do retain your sanity and how you are able to like sort of yourself from all the like just insanity and how you yourself from being entrenched in it. and then the second question is how do i get involved in your campaign oh, so nice. the, the first question about how do you retain your sanity? i mean, i think part of writing the book was part of that process for me trying to find a little bit of space and kind of think what happened and why do i feel this way and how do i put structure on it? but i would definitely say for me it's it's coming, it's coming home, it's coming to california and.

so you sort of do your days in washington and they can it can be difficult and, you know, you come home and you come back to california and you come back to the amazing things that we're doing here and the vision that we all have for our state. and you come to the piles of laundry and it's all very grounding. and so i think that has been a big part of it. and then i think in terms of getting involved in the campaign, you can go to katie porter dot com and sign up and we're about ten months away from the primary election. it's march 5th, so voting will start february 5th. and so we're going to be getting organized here over the summer to more events and to do more. i grew up in a state in iowa, pretty much if you wanted to meet a candidate, you just for president. you went down to the pizza ranch. and so when i got here, i started my first campaign. i mean, hope was that i would be able to shake, you know, maybe 100,000 hands, 200,000 hands and the attitude in california is often very different. it's we left the size and scale

of the state in which you cannot possibly meet 9 million people somehow work as an excuse, sometimes meet none. and i'm very committed having that not be the case. so i'm very excited about being out and about in the community. i just took a tour of the pinata toy district here, los angeles. i was up in davis. i mentioned, i did an event in huntington park at environmental justice issues. i'm heading to san diego, and so i'll be out and about campaigning. there'll be ways to get involved, but you can go sign up on the website at katie porter dot and stay up to date on things to get involved with. you alluded to california you don't want to be the national boogeyman. what do you mean by and what way is it or is portrayed as the national boogeyman? yeah. so i think there has been, you know, sometimes we see this in, in political advertisements, you know, what is happening in san francisco used or what is supposedly purportedly happening

in san francisco gets in ads in places like chicago or in minneapolis or, you know, california democratic state. so vote democrats in this or that will happen. i think, you know, because we've elected party leaders both and and speaker pelosi and now in speaker mccarthy those folks kind of loom large in the in the political and so i think you know, one of the things that i think california export because of the size of the state of the strength of our values and, our vision and our diversity is, we should really be able to to help people win and to be able to say, we've done it here and we want to help you do it where you are. and so i think it's important to messengers who make it easier, not harder for folks to win. yeah, i, i definitely think it's going through some identity crises and it needs to actually win in some of these areas too. there's so many problems here, especially in southern california, especially with homelessness, as you were saying, affordable housing. but anyhow, i was trying to say

that real fast. we can get to the question. hi, my name is gardenia. thank you so much for being here tonight. my question is, how do you prioritize? it's the different needs of your concerted you aren't and is it a lot like priority housing the different needs of your children? yeah. so think with the constituents of it is about trying to balance what are their top with where there are opportunities and try to line those up. and so this year for example the three bills that i think we're likely to to pass in this congress and to have signed into law are the farm bill, the faa, the federal aviation administration reauthorization act, and the national defense appropriations act. so on the farm bill example, orange county has serious problems with hunger and with people having food insecurity. so the farm bill, a major vehicle to try to invest in that california as we grow fruits and vegetables for the nation but yet our farm bill really does

not do right by our producers and by consumers who trying to afford fresh fruits and vegetables. so there's a lot of opportunity. so sometimes it's it's looking at what's there. and i think most of all, i do it by to my constituents. you really if you're searching for the answer, what the american people want, you are not going to find it in. the halls of the capitol, you're going to find in your community. so a lot the work i've done on mental health and, better insurance coverage for mental health, the work i've done, cracking down on big as work that they've because folks in california have to me about what a problem this is in their in terms of my kids i mean you know there's a lot there's a lot of color coded spreadsheets. there's a lot of calendar reminders, there's a lot of stringing together. i think most working parents, you just try to do the best can. and sometimes fall short. i recently was in washington voting until friday and flew back and had to leave at 5 a.m.

on monday morning and didn't have time to go to the grocery store. but i had a meal prepped so i had meals made for my kids in advance, but i didn't go to the grocery and so there were no there was no cinnamon toast crunch and, there were no cheez-its and. my children referred to this period, the great famine. and so, you know, you some you lose some. i mean, i pointed out it's irvine and it's half a mile to the grocery store and they can just walk on down there. and they said, my one son said they taste better. you buy them here in the in the back here, back in the back. you high representative porter, thank you so much for being here. my is emmanuel. i wanted to talk with you about an issue that is really relevant to young voters, which is climate, environmental justice. i live and grew up in south los angeles, according to a study

that was recently published by the guardian had the second worst air pollution in whole country and given experience on the natural resources committee. being a co-sponsor of the green new deal, i wanted to ask what aspects of the new deal you think would really valuable in those issues? not just in my own community, but an issue in communities like that across the state. yeah. thank for your question. and as i mentioned, i recently was in southeast l.a. , did a whole event around environmental justice looking at some of the pollution and some of the contamination. so i think it's really important as we about transitioning and moving toward clean that we think about making sure that we are rectifying as part of that transition some of the costs of our fossil fuel dependance. and so i think this means putting a lot of resources into having our ports be cleaner on the communities surrounding the ports suffer some of the worst air pollution and, water pollution in the country. i think it means we think about

protecting land and setting land aside. president biden made a promise 30% of federal set aside for conservation by 2030. the fast way do that is just to protect like a big chunk montana. but that isn't going to deliver the shake up in the recreation space deal with some of the of of heat extreme heat zones that we need do so i think there's a the part of the green new deal that i think is sort of the most misunderstood. but that really, really important is that it is a transformational trust from fossil fuel to clean energy, but also so a transformation from, a workforce that is exposed toxins and that is made sick from communities that are polluted into into jobs where people are safe and free pollution and communities that all have the opportunity to have clean air and clean water and good public health. and that's that's why we don't talk about it as just an energy

bill. we talk about it as an entire new deal in that would really, really realign and address some of the historical that we face. really great question. do you think that the attention environmental existentialism kind of takes away from a criminal justice? you know, in some of the issues this gentleman about because what you're saying how people, you know, should be able live in their own communities is very important, arguably important than the earth may go away. you know. well, you know, some of these arguments, not that they're not important this is the frame. i think that's the bait and switch comes from. people can't see that these are the actual issues. so i the great thing is the path to energy is also a path to addressing environmental injustices. if we do it right. and that means we need folks who live in community that have been hurt by pollution and we need people of color and who are who have been exposed to these kinds

of clean air and dirty, dirty air and dirty water to be of the clean energy, be part of the climate. and we need to center and listen to those voices. and i think, the chairman of the natural resources committee, raul grijalva, is really terrific doing this. but this means that when we're siting solar or we're thinking about where to put wind turbines where we going to put the manufacturing, that's going to manufacture these new wind and solar things? what about, you know, mining, rare minerals and minerals that we need for batteries? we need to not make the same mistakes regard to mining for those minerals that we need for clean energy, that we with regard to oil production, it can't the same communities and the same people, particularly people of who always pay the price for something that we all benefit from is ample energy. sure. absolutely. two more questions. okay. here we go. hello my name's lauren. i actually came for larry, but

i'm so happy that i came because i learned so much. so so i. i'm a mother and i'm also a here to california. and i've actually lived in four other states and. california is by far the most difficult that i've lived in while raising kids, knowing that you're a single mother and also kind of considering and kind of knowing, thinking about the max mass exodus that we've seen in california post the pandemic. what are some of the ways that you have worked in ensuring that there is an easier way for us to bridge the gap between working families, those families that fight for resources that's in comparison to affluent families and families that seem have resources at their fingertips. yep. so i think this goes back a little bit to how i was talking about childcare earlier, which is i think that republicans will present choices to invest in

what families need and they don't use the word invest, right? they use the word of you of of giveaways. right. to families in need. that's something takes away from those who are not in need. and i think that is incredibly mistaken and wrongheaded, dangerous. we all benefit from a strong, stable globally economy. all us. well, maybe if you're like a bankruptcy, you don't benefit. but everybody else benefits from a strong, stable globally economy. and to do that, to have that workforce that's going to deliver that economy, we need to be investing in early childhood education for. every single child. right. to have that. to have the ability to compete for the kinds of high tech jobs that we need, we need to invest in making sure every child with the talent and the capacity to go to college age has a spot in

the system and is able to afford to get there. and so i think one of the things that democrats really need to lean into is talking about these programs as what they are, which is, you perversely beneficial, right? it's not about what do i get and what do get and what are you going to do for this person and that person? it's that lifting up and making sure that every has the opportunity to thrive makes the lives of those are already thriving, better and more rewarding. and that is the shift that i think democrats to really lean into helping see. so i have people who say to me, i don't want to, you know, i paid for my college, so i don't want do anything about the costs of college going forward. well, you paid dollars a semester and that was great and good for you but i want the people who are going to take care of me as i age to be educated, to be trained to be skilled. i want there to be workforce here in our state and, here in

our country. so i think the republicans and this is, i think a legacy going back to reagan but is continue to don is to really present everything as a scarcity. there's not enough of anything. and so we have to choose who gets it that is complete nonsense. education is not like diamonds. if we need more universities and spots in our u.s. system, then by god, we should have them right. and it's a false choice to treat that. something that we can't afford. we can't, in fact, not to educate person to their capacity. and so, you know, we can't afford not to have children who are flourishing and thriving. so when we when we think about food assistance for somebody who's experiencing hunger, that that person fed and nourished, that is an investment in our future economy, that's an investment in a future worker and a coworker and, a neighbor and a colleague and someone i worship with. so i think that politics we need to have a politics abundance.

we are the wealthiest nation, the world, and we need to live collective, collective like it. i think. yeah, i agree. it's funny. it's ironic that for years and years college was pretty much free in california and reagan changed that kind of out of space to. get back at the students who were protesting against. a little bit history you guys say it was free and our question do we have one more or darling back? yeah. hi. my name is dorothy and you are my i live in orange county. i live in huntington beach. and this question, this is a statement to you. you have the skill set to make changes and to be a force the federal government. i am going to say the w word, which is stay woke, but i want you not get weary. remember i am counting on you to do, john lewis said, and get good trouble.

oh, thank you. thank you. i just if i can pick up on that, i. i think what she said to me is something that that i want to reflect back on to all of you and something that i talk a little bit about in book. nobody gets elected alone. i don't care how much pretend they are not. so let me people get elected because of people who help, people who knock doors, people who chip in $3, people who remember to vote on a day when they're just want to go home. and so we all need to kind of support each other and not getting weary. democracy is hell of a lot of work, but by its it's good work. it is righteous work. and so i think we all need to support ourselves in this and i think we need find time and moments to our successes. and i think one of the things the republicans with their antics to put it gently, are kind of doing is is stripping away our ability to celebrate

the amazing things that we have and that we and that we do accomplish. i think that that is really rooted in we have all been doing in this last few years. so i don't want any of you to get either because we are in this together and i think the future of california and of this country is incredibly bright and i am excited to be part of it with you at my back. so thank you so. yeah. awesome. i want take. off and i want to thank representative porter for being here. it really, truly has been an honor and a pleasure. you know i'm a huge fan of yours because you are doing that real work. it gives. it's a pleasure to read this book, by the way. i told you she should do a podcast behind the scenes and that kind of stuff. know, i think people would love to hear from her on that because you're just so effortless and just natural. so it's an honor to be here. thanks you guys for coming out. really appreciate it and for listening. black in the air, l.a. live talks.

how about another half hour. representative katie porter, possibly fannie and freddie or don't know. we don't know. thanks for coming

all right good evening and welcome everyone. very excited for you to be here for our modern age panel on patrick's.

a new book regime change. this is part of a initiative at eisai to move modern age to the forefront of the conversations taking place in and around the country. so look to many more of these evenings with you. first and foremost, i wanted to share little bit about the history of modern in case some of you aren't familiar. modern age was founded by kirk in 1959, but he actually had the idea for modern age in 1951. and in 1951, he began to circulate a prospect to various investors in the midwest and. his target readership was quote, professors, clergymen, leaders of businessmen in government and and this is important. those reflective people in obscure walks of life who preserve the equal of any society. so i will leave it to you, whether you are the you know, titans of industry and the powerful men of government, or whether you are those, you know,

obscure people preserving, the balance. but well, that statement is amusing. i do think it sort of it's sort of a fundament. it's a statement about the dignity of ordinary people because who is preserving the equilibrium in society. it's not the elites, right? it's the populists people in obscure places who care about the most important things. so what are the principles that he said animate modern age? it's amazing how well they've actually held up since 1951, he says. the journal should have a prejudice in favor of religion and prescriptive justice. liberty under law wisdom of ancestors manliness and thought and society today, but not being afraid to the problems of our age. he says that the disposition of modern age would be national, even international in ambition, but it ought to have a profound middle western sensibility, he said. america afford to relinquish control of her media to a small circle of elites and 2 to 3 cities who cannot truly to speak

for the whole nation. so dan mccarthy is he does live in alexandria, so he is some extent a creature of dc, although think he's he's better than most if not the best in terms of you know, truly understanding the interests of of the common good the interests of the people he hails from the midwest. and so i think he he this beautiful way of bringing these various constituencies and trying to order conserve fascism and hopefully america towards the common good. and i think no one's better than. ben, dan and also hannah rowan, who's our new managing editor to lead modern age in this new chapter. so we have exciting things coming for modern age. we have a new modern age online that'll be launching in the fall we're going to have a big party for that. we have some other exciting things that i don't have the liberty of sharing with you. this, 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 over five years, but even longer, a friend and a lecturer at isi i think he's one of the great political philosophers of our day. and i was actually dismayed when someone me perhaps an illegal copy of his new book forwarding you know a pdf because i knew that for the next week i wouldn't be able to sleep and i just would to read this book and be pondering the provocations inside book. profound questions being asked about the nature of america's leadership class and restoring virtue, the common good, subsidiarity and, solidarity to america. so i think it's fitting that a journal with a midwestern sensibility would have a philosopher from the midwest come to address us this evening and course, we've assembled an esteemed group of panelists to respond and of course, we have senator j d vance kevin roberts christine emba. so thank you all for being here. and i'd to welcome my colleague

and the editor of modern age, dan mccarthy, to the stage. i'm jenny mccarthy and i am indeed the editor of modern age and i hail originally from the midwest. i now live as john alluded to within the dc beltway in alexandria virginia which intellectually at least is what we call a target rich environment. i have to preface that with the intellectual adjective there, lest anyone get the wrong idea here. but certainly there's plenty of injustice within this city and its environs to be combated and written about. so i'm delighted to welcome you here and i'm really honored to be introducing one of tonight's sponsors. louise oliver is a woman of, many achievements, not least of which is having served as chairman of ice's board from 2004 to 2009, ambassador served as permanent representative of the united states to the united nations, educational, scientific

and, cultural organization. unesco's. she is the president of the diplomacy foundation, which we are honored to have as a sponsor of today's event. louise, please come up. thank you. dan, it is in fact a great honor and a pleasure for me to be here with you all this evening. but before i say anything else, i want to congratulate you. dan, on the extraordinary job you're doing with modern age. you just it's it's fantastic fantastic. and i don't want. stop there, johnny. i want to congratulate on the incredible job you're doing with isi. it's a pleasure watching isi just rolling along under your leadership. now, there are certain or

combination of words that can evoke an instant recognition of what they stand for. when i at unicef go to words fell into that category were marshall plan ambassadors from struggling countries all over the world kept insisting they needed a marshall plan. few of them knew any details about the marshall. they didn't know how it worked they didn't know why it worked. they only knew that played an important role in helping countries recover from the devastation of world war two and they were that a marshall plan could help their countries achieve prosperity. well the saving the two words that are most relevant to our are cold war those of us of a certain age know exactly what those words mean because. we lived through them those years. but what about those you born

after 1990, after infamous berlin wall came down, after borders were reopened, after the iron curtain name by winston churchill was lifted what do the words cold war mean to you? the official definition of cold war is that it's a state of conflict between nations that does not direct military action, but is pursued primarily economic and political actions, propaganda acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates the state of war that the world experienced after world war. that cold war was a decade long struggle against the global revolutionary ideology. communism, a communist ideology, was aggressively atheistic and anti nationalist communists sought to overthrow only governments, but also borders and religious everywhere.

faith fought back. so did patriotism. and despite communist attempts to promote worldwide revolutions through military interventions and occupations, through the construction of puppet regimes, through persistent propaganda and subversion, even in the heart of the free world, the cold war did not turn world war three. the west won the cold war with diplomacy not only with the brilliant end game diplomacy of ronald reagan, but with public diplomacy spanned decades. diplomacy that focused on promoting western ideas and culture. our diplomacy and were effective because we were not promoting an alternative global revolutionary ideology. we were promoting freedom for our allies. the cold war trusted us to uphold the very pillars of civilization that the communist sought to destroy the nation and religion. how is it then that today, 30

years after the end of the soviet union, american diplomacy has become so ideological and revolutionary in aspiration today, regime change is the watchword of our foreign policy establishment and liberalism is no longer a negation of socialism. communism instead, liberalism now means comprehensive cultural program to be through revolution everywhere, beginning at home, we the cold war against communism abroad but at home a culture wars establishing or has established a revolution ideology in our own institutions. those of you who participe made in isi programs and activities know what this culture war has done to our colleges and universities, the results have been disastrous for our nation politically, economically,

strategic, diplomatically and culturally. and they've been disastrous for the world. well. america has waged wars for decades without any of the success that we achieved. diplomacy in the cold war. and now europe is a battlefield. and at the same time, communist china is stronger. the world needs, america to recover what it lost after cold war, the strength, resist ideology in the name of god and country to regain our strength as a nation have to bring an end to the revolutionary ideology that occupies our institutions at home. just as eastern and russians brought down the revolutionary communism that occupied their nations, patrick deneen understands a conflict where in his new book regime change towards a post liberal future turns the table on our revolutionary ideologues. this is regime change to restore our

and to restore to restore peace and stability around world. so please join me in welcoming on behalf of isi the american diplomacy foundation modern age patrick deneen and all of our distinguished. thank you. thank you, louise. so i will be as emcee and moderator today, before we begin with our panel, we first will have remarks by patrick deneen. patrick deneen is the professor political science at the university of notre dame. he's the author of many books, including liberalism failed, and his latest work regime change toward a post liberal future. with that will bring patrick.

thank you so much. thank you, jonny. thank you, dan. thank you, louise for those remarkable comments. and thank you, all of you who are here tonight on a beautiful night, one of those rare nights in washington, d.c., where you're not to death from from weather that i remember all too well. i'm deeply honored by the gathering here. those of you who are here by senator by president of the heritage foundation, christine and by columnist for the washington post. but i would be remiss if i didn't say i was most honored by the presence a pretty significant presence of several generations of students who i was able to mingle with. and as a teacher and someone who's maybe moving toward slightly more toward end of my career. this really what gives me hope is to have these just numbers students, this growing number of students who see launching into the world and having an impact. and i just want to thank you, all of you, from days from georgetown, days and now from

notre dame days for coming out here tonight. you know who you are and i'm really grateful for so we're all aware of the dynamics of the current political divide, not only in the united states but around the world. what we've seen and what has been perhaps endlessly discussed is the rise of a kind of new political dynamic in the west seen in various forms and brexit the election of donald trump with, various movements around world, the recent election of in italy resulting in prime minister moloney. in other words, the rise populism as 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 as something really new, as something that we have to get our heads around because of how how distinct and sudden and

incomprehensible. this is at some level. but as someone who teaches the history of political thought, you know, spends a lot of time reading greek and greeks and romans in latin and romans and the broad tradition of political philosophy, this doesn't seem to me to be even remotely surprising. in fact, what surprises is that there was a time in the history of the world where we would think, this is not the nature and the fundamental division of politics going the way back to antiquity. if we read, the works of plato and aristotle and aristotle's name, i'll probably mention a few here tonight. aristotle in particular, states outright that all political regimes and i use this word advisedly all political orders are divided in one fundamental way between. the few and the many, all political regimes have a kind of tension built into them, and that everywhere this seems to be a truth that aristotle, in his with his empirical political had

on says that one sees this in the fact that when he looks around contemporary greece of day there seem to be two predominant regime types democracy which was true of his athens where. he was living and writing and oligarchy the regime of the many and the regime of the few and aristotle if if you've studied some aristotle, you can remember to your days and introduction political theory. aristotle regarded both of these regimes as vicious as reflecting a kind of vice. they weren't of the regimes he regarded as good as as the sort of exemplary forms of a good regime. in other words, they were not regimes democracy. that the regime of the many and oligarchy. the regime that favors the few. they were not regimes that were constituted in order realize the common good. but of everyone in the society. they were regimes of a certain kind of party the party of the many or the party of the few.

and because of this fact, aristotle, because this these regimes, oligarchy or democracy were always constituted to favor some number and some limited number of people within the regime based upon typically class, it meant that these regimes were prone to to likely trajectories and in fact, two likely trajectories were likely to be to follow one upon the other. the first was civil war, that in the in the pursuit of the interest of the party that governed the other party would rise and seek to assume power from them. and the other result likely tyranny that one when one side would win, it would tyrannized over the other side. so here's an ancient philosopher, and this is a theme that's repeated over and over again in the history of political thought, saying that every political order is essentially destined, it would seem to.

two outcomes civil war or tyranny. and if you read the papers today, you the op eds, read the columns. these are two words we see a lot these days. america is in the midst of a new civil war or we are being governed in a tyrannical fashion. these very ancient words have made their way back into our. now, aristotle wasn't pessimistic about this. in fact, he thought there might be a way to to address or redress this basic problem of politics. and he said, if you have a really you're really blessed and fortunate. you might have a good king or you might have a good aristotle ocracy. 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 the various features and qualities of the many and the few. and in this tradition, there's actually a lot of really interesting discussion of respective virtues of the people

of the populous and the respective virtues, the few of those who are likely to be bent to benefit from class advantages of being in party of the few. the few those who perhaps reflect the virtues of oligarchs. they tend to have more elevated taste. they like nice restaurants. if you live in washington, d.c., if you're not rich, you benefit from the here. i can tell you living in south bend, we don't have quite the quite selection of restaurants not as many oligarchs. and a few that we have now work in the department of transportation. the oligarchs or. the few have the advantages of leisure, of education, of refinement and of high culture. these are the things that are rightly admired among the aristocrats of old are even among the oligarchs. i just passed the blain mansion downtown on circle and i'm glad

that it exists. if i'm not likely to be able to buy it for what, million dollars? on the other hand, the many the people looking yuji reflects kinds of virtues, their ordinary virtues. these are people who tend to be close to the earth. they do. they know the work of hands. they often are do do things themselves, fix their own cars plant, their own crops. they know how to make an electric circuit close. they understand the reality of limits, a world of limitation. you have to have a budget and you have to live within it. they understand often that we can't do it on our own. people have money sometimes think they can do it on their own. but people who don't have money often have to rely on their friends and neighbors. so there are places that there are people that are often rooted and they have memory and they often is, as polybius them, they're people of piety, maybe because of their condition of being limited and recognizing

the way in which they have reliance beyond. but each of these parties also have certain vices that are kind of endemic to their condition. the few find it easier to dominate, the many they just more tools at their hands right. they they can control the media they can control the the the the the financial system. they control the institution the educational institutions. they are they are demarcate by a kind of elitism, a kind of scorn. condescension toward the many. they have the ability to live separately and often in far nicer places, the many and the many we can say are also have their vices. they toward being coarse they can become degraded, especially when they're not led by good leaders. and then in in such a conditions they can be attracted to demagogues and they can be manipulated. resentments can be manipulated by demagogues.

the proposal of someone, aristotle or polybius, of a whole series of thinkers was to take the elements of these two groups that are found. nearly every political order and to mix them in the hopes and with the intention that the virtues of each side would counteract and cancel out the vices each side, and that this would actually have the result of creating a good political order, that this would actually because the respective virtues of each, they would in some ways the vices of each. this wasn't merely checks and balances. this was actually a kind of aspira passion to a certain kind of virtue and a virtue that achieves a kind moderation. a moderation now of a mixing of extremes. to use the aristotelian language. now, one of the hallmarks of this tradition was a that to create a constitution was difficult. such a regime was difficult. but once it was realized, to the

extent it was realized, it required order and stability and literally a kind of balance what it actually would would be source of of danger to, such achievement of such a regime would be instability, rapid change, embattled and transformation for as long as possible then. aristotle writes as if one has such a regime, one should seek to continue it forward into time by retaining the balance and in the same way that if you ever walk with like a plank on your head or something you don't run, you walk with a certain amount of care trying to keep it balanced as you're moving forward. now in the book, i make the following argument and claim and i've been thinking a lot about this, this tradition as. it relates to our contemporary politics. it seems to me that there's a way in which the modern the modern age, i'm not so sure i'm

as fond of it as kirk seem to have, but i don't think russell kirk really was either. that part of what constitutes modernity and we could we could describe it in many ways is to reject this ancient ideal of what might be the resolution of the divide between the many and the few and to replace it what we might describe as a polity mix of progress, a politics of change, often rapid change, transformation that rather than seeking order and stability and constancy and continuation, the modern solution to this problem, the divide between the many and the was to promote a society that would engage in constant and even maybe constantly increasing change and transformation the liberal itself, beginning with the tradition, overturns this ideal of classical mixed regime, mixed

constitution in favor of a modern philosophy that argues in favor of those who will bear the responsible of generating a society of rapid and even increasingly rapid change. and the of the liberal thinkers who this was, especially those who for this the presence of this kind of change, especially in economic realm and, that the elites of such a society, especially now, the oligarchs of such society, to use the aristotelian language needed in some ways to be protected or from the threats that were posed by the many the many who in particular would feel a threat of the change and transformation of, the economic realm, as well as a certain amount of toward the inequality. thus classical liberalism naturally finds its opponent in in marxism. right. who wants to promote the revolution of. the many from below. but it becomes suspect also of populism more broadly populism,

something suspect in the view and in the eyes of the classical liberal tradition. and therefore we we shouldn't be surprised in the contemporary world and in our contemporary politics, those whom we might classify as classical have become sort of never trumpers or anti populist. goldberg is a really good case in point. a classical liberal who would call himself a conservative, but it was especially hates the way in which the promotion of the views of the many poses a threat to the to a theory of dynamic constantly transform economic progress. well classical liberalism then builds a theory of how the elites in this case economic leads have to be the guiding force in the society and develops a constitutional order that seeks to restrain and constrain the ability of the many to interfere in the rights of property. but this is no less true in what we were today of describe as the progressive liberal tradition, which is also born out of an

antipathy toward the many indeed more than perhaps just a suspicion, outright denigration and and a distinct of condescension toward the many. and this is because to use language of john stuart mill, this is because of their instinctive there to be governed by what he calls the despotism of custom. and that if society is going to become a more progressive society, a society of constant transformation and change and upending of of of traditional ways of doing thing one doing things one needed, especially to liberate the distinctive individuals in one society, those he praises for their individuality in order to release what he regards as human human orientation to creatures who are who are progressive beings in their essential form

in order to achieve. he makes a famous argument in on liberty of of these individuals from the constraints of custom and tradition and in particular liberating them the constraints of the demos. the threat of the demos. democracy as acting as a kind of restraint. art upon the progress of society. one of the ways in which mill argued this could be achieved was by plural voting, giving those who were more educated, more votes, thereby ensuring that progress would be ensured by those who were more educated being in control of the political process. but as we know today, you don't necessarily more votes. you just need the institutions, the cultural institutions that can in some ways serve as essentially the functional equivalent of plural voting. the result of this and move away the from the tradition of the idea of constitution with its

stress upon stability and order and balance toward, one of transformation and constant of philosophy in a politics of progress was the creation of a new divide in our politics. and again, here you of political philosophy will recognize the new divide. our politics becomes the party of order against the party of and those who call yourselves conservatives. or if you don't call yourself conservative, one should understand this is the origins of what conservatism was. it was edmund burke against the french revolution. right. it was disraeli against, what he saw as the revolutionary. that was a combination of the sort of bourgeois commercial class as. well, as the kind of cultural revolutionaries of his day. this was the beginnings of conservatism which understood itself as comparing the tradition of this mixed constitution philosophy, the

mixing of the elites and ordinary people. for edmund burke, the kind of combination of the old aristotle, the landed aristocracy, with the instinctive conservatism of the many right. if you read burke's rabid thoughts on the revolution that are considerations on the french revolution, what does he say? the aristocracy is especially response rebel for preserving the way of life that's been developed organically from the bottom up. that a kind of responsibility of the elite to preserve the order of the society and this is the origins of the party order or of conservatism. and they were posed against party of progress, which was typically a combination of economic and social liberals. what most countries in the world call the liberal party and which we we in some ways have failed to understand that, that this combination of the social and economic liberals really does constitute a single.

in the 20th century and in significant part because of what louise began by saying of particular circumstances arising from the cold war conservatism against russell kirk's was transformed in a liberal direction, what was called liberalism, especially in the economic sphere, became re described as a kind of conservatism. and we actually resulted in a kind of unity party, a party that was consistently liberal, even though it fought each other in its economic guise and its economic dimension. what came to be known as and in its social dimension, what came to be known as progressive. and this divide then became, for us, the political that represented the genuine and only choice that we as americans had year. and if you're like me, you're like a cat. you're like me, a catholic. doubtless you have had that

experience in your life of saying, i don't know who to vote for because they're all problem. and the reason the fundamental reason that they were all problematic is because they really, at the deepest level, representing a liberal philosophy, a of disorder, a philosophy of instability and imbalance in spite of the constant oscillate between these two liberal parties, one claiming to be economically conservative, i.e. liberal, and one claiming to be socially liberal. it was in the case that it was a single project that unfolded consistently over time, constantly bringing more into being the party progress as the sole party that governed this the govern this nation for least the last 75 years. the economic the economic side of this party of this divide we called conservatism. but now, i think, increasingly called liberalism. my friend sorba murray shamelessly calls them

neoliberals. this was originally the project of the right liberals, but of course became adopted, embraced over time so-called progressives or left liberals. bill clinton and tony blair. this was the project of seeking to dismantle those conservative or stabilizing constraints upon the disorder that an unbridled economy produce, the disorder ring that impacts those of the lower classes and the working classes. a world straddling market that was increasingly freed of any kind of and obstacles. and so at the risk of being condemned in the way that kevin roberts was condemned for a recent speech. this resulted in globalization and the globalization of the economy the outsourcing of our industries. again, that senator vance knows all too well about the financialization of our economy, the delinking of basic things, like having mortgage, which is

all about having a home. delinking that from places and turning it into a financial product that just left one's community. and of course, the opening let's just say the the the elimination borders in any very real sense, both in terms of products as as, of course, labor. and here again, with the aim of producing especially a cheap labor as well as cheap products. and at the same time, this project resulted in an ongoing form of cultural and social revolution, the ongoing liberalization of the social to the social domain, the dismantling of those stabilizing and aspects over the realm of our social, the lives that we live. response in our in and through our communities. the decline. what used to be known as decency loss and norms and customs, obscenity. i mean, i grew up in a world in which f-bombs were very rare.

and when someone said it, you knew they were angry. it meant something. and now it's just like a verbal it doesn't even mean anything. indecency, pornography nakedness, public displays. not just of affection, of pornography, blasphemy sexual mores. divorce. cohabitation illegitimacy. all of these. the obstacles of the limits dismantled reproduction, the delinking of reproduction from of sexuality, from reproduction, birth control and abortion. the disassociate notion of our sexuality from bringing new life into the world, into the world. now, abortion being praised as, a positive, good, something one should celebrate. of course, marriage an issue over which we have struggled as a culture. but in fact, one which is actually in spite of the

apparent importance of in our national debates, is ceasing to exist as a reality. at the very time we were having debates about what is marriage, people were ceasing to get married. and so we have all kinds of relationships. i just saw the new york times article yesterday advising the best studied best cities to live in. if you want to have a polyamorous relationship. and now we don't even increasingly don't want to draw lines on what it is to a man or a woman. and we have surgical procedures to make sure that line can be erased this of progress. then similar tenuously in the economic realm and in the social realm has dismantled any remnant of was a kind of residual mixed constitution existed in the american tradition. and we should note and we should celebrate, that this was our constitution, not our written constitution, though i don't think our written constitution contradicted this, but it was our practice. it is part of the american

tradition. and this tradition that prized order and stability and balanced was replaced time by revolutionary disorder, one that prizes us liberty as a kind of abstract ideal of simply choice, disruption and the language of progress. once one understands this phenomenon, the light of, i think, this classical, long, classical tradition and the transformation that it underwent in the modern time. i think now we can more adequately understand what we've been seeing in the world in the last roughly decade. what there seems to be a sudden outburst, inexplicable populism. now we understand is in fact inchoate and somewhat inarticulate demand by those who are at our residual of party of order saying we need in our lives, we need stability, we need balance and we need it in both the economic realm and in

the social realm. and when this movement described as a right wing movement, i can only laugh and chuckle. and i said, haven't you noticed they're in favor of tariffs and the real industrial association of america and helping working class people get good jobs. this is really right wing. this is what right wing is now. apparently, this largely inchoate under under philosophizing reaction from the bottom expressed through electoral, electoral for brexit and for donald, and now becoming more conscious and deliberate in, for example, by ron desantis in, florida and a whole number of red state governors and many of the policies that are being pursued by the most nefarious in the world. viktor orban who wants to shore up and families, among other things, notice what one sees as an effort to restore where the party of order, which is, of course, anathema to the party of

progress, who wants to reign supreme? it wants reign as a tyranny. there are many people who are anticipating book is a call to have a consonant unceasing january 6th. deneen regime change. he wants to finally the government. i don't want to violently overthrow government i'm i want something far more revolutionary than that that i want to overthrow the party of progress and a party of order is actually the dominant party in our politics that runs through parties. and it runs through both parties. and whether that is now we economically over those who support up economics of order and a social order of order that we see more clearly the deep between these two things and this me would be what constitutes regime change. now what would regime change look like in this form? it would be a reimagining of this mixed constitutional

tradition. it's not just simply take aristotle and apply it today. that's not a good idea. and here's where i'm really glad to these people here to talk with tonight. i do have a chapter in which i make various policy proposals and i should admit you really forthrightly. i'm not a policy. i can talk about aristotle till the cows come home, but i propose things like let's break up washington dc, let's send all these, you know, various, you know, depart ments and various institutes. let's send out of washington, let's send them out the rust belt towns where they could actually help our country. so that's maybe like a radical, incredible undoable proposal. but you if we push the envelope a little bit, but what would it what would mixing begin to look like? what would a mix constitute? and that would begin to mix the many and the few placing less focus emphasis on our elite colleges and and more on learning trades more and actually having people who can do things in this country asking and indeed people in an

otherwise elite universities to learn a trade. what would be a better argument against the gnosticism that now dominates our academic institutions than to require students to learn how to wire a light you know a light fixture all right you either get it right or you get it wrong. you know, there's no there's no truth about this. i call this proposal. i call it common good, because it is about the effort to encourage and to foster a party of order. but by conservatism, i hear, i mean, a pure and i hope you all hear this. this is not the conservative ism of your granddad. perhaps, or of your father or mother. this is a conservatism of of even though aristotle know the word, this is the conservatism

of a tradition that regards a society aspiring to order and stability as that which has the potential of constituting the conditions for virtue and truth and a truly good political order order. i just want to close because an awful lot of people who read my last book said, well, you don't love america. you must hate america because you don't like liberalism. and here. i want to say it in front of this really wonderful of people, many of whom are my former students, who might be wondering, does deneen hate america. this is about recovering a deep part of our tradition, and it's not the tradition that you've been taught. if you've been taught that the american tradition was always and everywhere about liberalism, that itself was a product of the cold and it served a particular function that time. but it it allied or or hid or shrouded the kind of unwritten constitution of america, how people live their lives. when tocqueville i can't end a

without without invoking tocqueville when tocqueville comes to america in the thirties, he marvels that the americans have somehow out how to combine the spirit, liberty and the spirit of religion. these two things that in europe of his time didn't seem to go together. and this is what he observes. he says, in america, the law permits americans to do what they please. we can we can redefine what a man or a woman is, can redefine what marriage is. the law is basically whatever the people say says that it is. he notices this the law can have the potential of being limitless. he says the following while the law permits americans to do as they please. religion prevents them from conceiving and forbids to commit what is rash and. he goes on nature and circumstances have made the inhabitants of the states bold as a sufficiently attested by

the enterprising spirit which they seek fortune. some things don't change, and if the mind of the american were free of all hindrances, they would shortly become the most daring innovators and the most persistent disputes in the world are not compliments. innovators is not a good thing in tocqueville's mind, but the revolutionists america are obliged to profess, at least in our stencil bull respect for christian and equity, which does not permit them to violate wantonly the laws that oppose their designs. nor would they find it easy to surmount the scruples of their partizans, even if they were able to get over their own scruples. hitherto, no one in the united states has dared to advance the maxim that everything permissible for the interests of society for this is an in pious which 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 temptation to be revolutionists and the american condition and situation makes us susceptible to that. and yet tocqueville, observing the of the 1830 says they've done it. they succeeded in governing what is otherwise a constant temptation in front of them. and i would say, if we seek to conserve american tradition, this is the tradition should look to be conserving. i thank you very much for your attention. so we're now going have our panelists come up on stage and we have a certain sequence for

them. so i think they know they're their seats. we'll have j d vance here, followed by christine emba. dr. and then patrick deneen at the end end. so patrick's remarks were at a very high theoretical. they were at a level that as the introductions suggested, were a appropriate for the literate layperson as well as for the academic, especially whether a student or a professor. and we have among us today journalists, office holders, thought leaders, policy experts, a wide range of individuals will help us to concretize things and bring down to a level of implementation. some the ideas that we've heard patrick discuss, although we'll also hear, i think from all the panelists, new theoretical perspectives as well, and this mixture of the practical and the

theoretical is something that modern age certainly aspires very to reflect. it's something that isi as a whole tries encourage among our students, faculty and friends. beou know, i kind of mixed regime itself here on our stage. so with that, let me briefly introduce each of our panelists immediately to my left, at least only on stage not necessarily politically is a the great senator who represents the state of ohio and among other accomplishments is the author of the bestseller hillbilly elegy, a memoir of a family and a culture in crisis next to jd is christine emba. she's a columnist at the washington post and she's also the author of the widely acclaimed and aptly rethinking sex, a next to. christine, we have dr. kevin roberts the president of the heritage foundation. he earned his ph.d. in american history at the university of texas at austin, and he's the host of the kevin

roberts, which is a wonderful podcast. so two of the themes i wanted to get into at the beginning our discussion are of all this idea of mixture and some of the divisions that we see in american society. and then secondly, after that, we'll move on to some thoughts about progress, what it means what's good about it, bad about it, and your particular perspectives. so let me start by asking you senator vance, you're someone who in political life has had to deal with a of the few and the many the few who are deeply politically engaged, the few who might be considered the political establishment for that matter. the senate itself is obviously a body of quite a few people and also the many. you are someone who represents the great many of ohio. you're someone who in fact, i think for americans across the country is a voice of the many. how do you balance in practice in sort of the combination of theory and practice, the few and the many as an officeholder, as a statesman?

well, first, dan, thanks for for doing and thanks to all of you for being here. and thanks to patrick, of course, for writing great book. i guess i think that things in american society are so tilted towards the few that i just worry the many and let the rest of it figure itself out. right. so i sort of see my my role and my voice as being anti-elitist explicitly anti-regime. and to the extent that can we can sort of elevate voices that have been ignored. that's the role that i play. and i think that hopefully i can play a part in that, but that i don't see myself as trying to concoct the balance myself. i myself as a corrective one observation just want to make this this question of mixture and you know think this as patrick was speaking we on the right on the on the sort of the post liberal right the new right or however we want to define what it is this sort of hodgepodge of people and ideologies that have sort of collective themselves here today. i think that we are really, really kidding ourselves about the weight of the challenge.

and when we talk about changing the regime which is in fact, a word that i myself have used before, i agree with, and i think we have to be clear eyed about how difficult is. and let me just illustrate. this is one particular issue. one of the hangover is one of the really bad hangovers from, that sort of unit party that patrick deneen talked about is this idea that there is this extremely strong between the public sector and the private sector. you know, the public sector, there's the necessary evil of government. we want to limited as much as possible because to the extent that we don't limit it. it's going to do a lot of terrible things. and then you have the private sector sort of that which which comes from spontaneous. it's organic. you know it's very burkean and we want let people sort of do as much free exchange within that realm as possible. and in the reality of politics, i've seen it practice the way that lobbyists interact with bureaucrats, interact with corporations. there is no meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the american regime. it is all fuzed together. it is all melded together.

it is all, in my view, very much aligned against people who i represent in the state of ohio. i will give you a couple of examples. one, when i talk to sort of more traditionalist economic conservatives, what would what patrick would call liberals when i talk to these guys about, for example, why has corporate america so woke? i see in their eyes desperate desire to think that it's all coming from the scc, that there a couple of bad regulations at the fcc and that in fact larry fink would love to not be a super woke a driver of american enterprise that budweiser has no desire to put out a series of advertisement that alienate half of their customer base. they're just being forced to do it by evil bureaucrats. and there is an element of truth to that. but the element of truth to that, that the regime is the and private sector, it's the corporate ceos. it's the h.r. professional is that budweiser? and they are working together against one another in a way destroys the american common good. that is the fact that we are

with and that's something that i think we have to we have to be we have to be mindful of. the one final point that i'll make somewhat related your point, dan, but i just, you know, as was talking, i thought about this and i have the and no one's going to tell me to shut the hell up so i'll just go ahead and make this point. oh one just short of practical piece of guidance i'd give for for you know, to your point about practicality versus mindedness. and i'm the lowly very practical u.s. senator here on the stage is i would say that we should be extreme, be mindful to something patrick said about the real population that we're dealing with, not a sort of phantom or an abstraction or this this idea that they're somehow perfect and that they're perfectly with our politics people are complicated. and let me just give you one example from the campaign trail. i think has heard me tell the story. i don't know that anybody in this room has. i was i was at a i was at a campaign event sort of three or four months before the election. it was after the primary. it was before the general

election. and i was talking to probably a 45 year old black woman who up to me and told me she was pro-life, she was a democrat and i was the first republican she was going to vote for. and i remember at the time thinking this is the very sort of person that my very new right friends think that we need to be appealing to and the right about that, by the way but also think this is a natural for the republican party and i don't think they're necessarily about that. at least the republican party is it's currently constituted because what she told me was not about the fact that i was maybe more pro-labor than the average republican or i was more pro working class than the average republican. what she said and i quote speaking about my book is you've been hit in face and no other politician has. that was why she was voting for me, not because of any high minded reason, but because she thought too many politicians were cowards. i'd been hit in the face and survived it. that's that's. that's who. that's who we're dealing with. and patrick's point, i think there's wisdom in that approach not just a sort of lack of

sophistication i think a lot of people want to see in that woman the lack of sophistication. and i think it's important we see the wisdom. we see it with very clear eyes. so patrick and senator vance have both put a lot on the table and this will be truly a feast and we will continue to pile up higher the offerings as we go on to our next panelist christine emba. so, christine, in addition to, the few in the many in addition to some of the other divisions that patrick and j.d. have alluded to, there are also the question of how you get a mixed regime of men and women. and it seems that men and women have, you know, both among themselves also ideologically in terms of how we even define men and women today and what we see the roles as being there is a great deal of confusion and anxiety and controversy so what do you think about mixed regime when you think about the few in the many and when you think about men and women, what of tensions do you see and what are your insights? how those tensions might be minimized or at least understood better and perhaps navigated?

that is a fascinating. first of all, i. already warmed up. excellent. first of all, thank you for having me, patrick. thank you for letting me. be part of this first discussion. it's it is provocative book and i know having written a provocation myself. i found your work quite formative. actually, i reviewed. why liberalism failed in one of my first columns for the washington and the title of that column was liberalism is loneliness and ostensibly column was not just about the problems of men and women, but it describes and reference your book and talking about how this regime liberalism, this individualism, every man or woman for himself has in the end left us all perhaps dependent on

a state who is, in fact, not mate or a partner or dependent on a free market when the things that should have been ensured our communities, our families our romantic partners perhaps have failed. in the end, liberalism leaves us entirely alone and. i was thinking about that as i rethinking sex and talking to so young men and women and older and women to about the problem of loneliness which was even more a problem i than our current consent based, overly liberal sexual regime. there is clearly and i think any young person in this room has felt it can talk it with their friends. the sense a breakdown that men and women you mentioned daniel don't know how to relate to each other it's what our roles are.

it's unclear what is a man, what is a woman? what should we do? how do we what are the norms that would shape our coming together without them? we stray. we move further away. we away and when you talk about sort of the the difference between the many and the few, many research areas have noted this. the few. in fact, while promoting perhaps more liberal norms, norms that are suited to individuals, resources, indeed, elites who can experiment sexually, who don't need to have families or partners. they make enough money to support themselves who can, in fact make it on their own. those are the people who actually end up living by norms, by the moral truths that were sometimes viewed as the property of the common person. but what's passed down to be, again, those trappings of

individuation, these that elites can suffer, but that the many will not thrive then in following, i think when think about what a mixed constitution looks like when it comes to gender, when it comes to the sexes. i of an ideal of cooperation of the cooperation that so many are searching for and longing for. in fact, that seems to be missing in this moment. yes, norm, supporting family formation supporting healthy norms that suggest that, yes, you can grow something in the place that you're from. you don't have to leave and, cross the country for opportunity and, leave everything you left behind. there's also an understanding of roles, perhaps. and when we talk about roles, i think in progress or more liberal spaces, which i tend to frequent, let's be honest,

there's this idea that you'll be pushed into one you have to fit thing. there's no room dissent. there's no room for discovery. but i would suggest actually that in a mixture of the many, the few, there's a view of and a vision for more opportunity, not less there more places that you can fit you don't necessarily have to be a girl but striving to succeed. you don't necessarily have to be a guy who's hyper masculine, hyper macho and hopped up on pornography to get girls on tinder. there can be space everyone and cooperation of class, both classes and genders. i do have one question actually. like any good journalist professor, i worry little bit when we talk about sort of regime change and a new elite,

are we sure that we're not replacing again the old elite which is self-interested, a new one that is self interested in its own way? and then of course there is a question of sufferance for all its faults, the liberal ideal is that is actually very forgiving. people who are different for people who maybe don't, the norms and the mores of their their town of the assigned gender will or at least what are understood to be the trappings of their gender in the new regime are people who differ on sufferance or are they actually included. often when we talk about relationships between, men and women, there is a focus on family formation. we strong families with a patriarchal and a mom who