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. and it's something i think will be you 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 perhaps worked at home. they have kids. they do all of the normal things. what do we say to singles? what do we say to people who are gay, who are lgbt? what do we say for people who those norms don't quite fit? where do they go in this new regime? i'm excited for the possibilities that you talk about in this book. again, you might say that progressives would instantly push this away, but actually i think that there is a lot of room for agreement on questions of reforming the university so that the few come into contact with more people than just themselves and increasingly arcane. these ideas, national service say teaching both men and women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ncaa. a not even a not even a corporation that in a sense, forced indiana to reverse what was a legitimate piece of democratic legislation duly by the state legislature of a sovereign state of indiana and signed into law by then governor mike pence. and i hear none of my colleagues who constantly talk, endlessly about the threats to democracy faced by contemporary america when speaking of january six, have a peep say about the role that these private corporations played in, overturning a piece of state legislation. this is where i would say i don't want government to be around. i want government to do something in those kinds of situations. it needs to actually get out of the water, get out of the bath and do something and protect protect the citizens of that state. nor do i want the government doing everything in our lives. of course not. but this is where i think we need adequate prudence in judgment to determine where the right level of government should

apply. the solomon in my metaphor, i want to waterboard government. that may actually more controversial reaction than i hope so. the senator that alluded to it is i thought this this actually allows me to just make one one maybe slightly awkward transition to a topic that i actually talk a good deal about in the book, which is the rise of wokeism and the woke corporations and something that senator talked about and here i think what we what way in which i think lots of people attempting to explain this. i think in london a lot of people are talking about cultural marxism as as the source of the rise of wokeism. and i, i find this explanation to be absolutely implausible at some level. i think when you see that a

essentially, especially the trajectory of the liberal order of, a basically disordered progress, what we're seeing is the genuine wedding, the the the realization of the combination of the of the sort of, let's say, progressive interests of, capital and the progressive interests of the social revolutionaries and. they found this way to marry themselves to each other, as it were, with in and through wokeness. so and it's noticed that it's taking place at a particular time and it's taking place at a moment when the the visible inequality and the condition that christine described of in which ordinary people are really now essentially almost rendered. of of of achieving those based goods of life, whether it's marriage family, owning a home, having these of having a decent job, maybe your has an even

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

variety of choices sexually than before. these forms progress are celebrated by not only many left wing and progressive institutions, but millions of americans seems to have bought into the idea of the sexual revolution as a triumph progress as well. i think your book is very interesting because you complicate picture in what ways is the sexual revolution, not a triumph of progress or perhaps a progress that may be, again, perhaps is leaving behind people in ways that may be overlooked by the sort of celebratory publicity that the sexual revolution often gets. another great one. i, i think that first we have to really think about progress means. and i think that there are actually a couple different definitions of progress sort of floating around that patrick actually does good work and sort of dividing out in his book. there is what could describe as a liberal ideal of progress in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

community, the those are some the eternal things that can serve citizens has always been about at least since burke. and there's a long tradition in american history through the post-cold era up to this day that maybe not as ascendant as it once was, although i think it might be now. all that to say, heritage, we also believe that in order to create the space in which individuals, communities as new institutions reformed institution can help further progress, can help improve the dignity of the human person that we do have to get government out of the way, all just and all jousting aside, whatever metaphor we want to use with the bathtub. i'm a conservative, a libertarian, heritage's a conservative. no modifier in front of it. i think it's redundant to say common good conservatism because conservatism is about the common

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

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

heritage or not, whether you want to waterboard or drown government, do not despair. it's just we have to be busy about all of these things we're talking about. before i turn to patrick with a last question for myself, i want to alert our isi folk with microphones to, be on standby because we will take a question or two from the audience when we conclude. but patrick, i wanted to turn back to you not just on the theme of progress, but this idea of a mixed regime. one of the things that makes alexis de tocqueville so brilliant is the fact that he is living after revolutionary age. france has had a revolution then in lifetime you've had a restoration of monarchy. there are some in restored france that want the monarchy to be much stronger. we want it to be as powerful as it had been under louis the 14th, for example and there are others in the restored under which tocqueville's living who want to have a second french revolution. and of course you, you know,

military folks who perhaps want a napoleon bonaparte to or his is heir rather napoleon the third to come to power. but one of the things that makes tocqueville brilliant is, this mixture of old new revolutionary post revolutionary and pre revolutionary. my question for you is america has had a cultural revolution it seems america has experienced these liberal transformations you've discussed. is it the case that what you envision is a return to an earlier pre-revolutionary condition. or will a post revolutionary condition be that has to combine some of the aspects of the liberal order that you've described with mixed regime that you want to bring about. so the subtitle of the book is toward a postwar liberal future, and that that phrase is or word is chosen with some care and and forethought, which is that it's not simply a going it's not a going back. it's not an effort to say, well,

in order to restore, you know, a better america, we have to go back to 1950 or 1980 or. i'm not sure what the period would be in early american that we would probably impolitic for me to answer that. yes, it would be probably in other words, that there's a, there is no going back time doesn't that way. but also we've lived through this liberal revolution. and, you know, christine points out aspects of it that i think, you certainly as a catholic and as a human being, i would regard as good i mean, i you you read the treatment, obviously treatment of of african in this country and then the treatment in the jim crow world. and there's, you know, maybe there are people who want to go back. i hope, you know, i genuinely that whether you describe yourself as a conservative or as a liberal or progressive, this is not what's wanted there's no wanting to go back to that kind of condition. and i certainly don't and here i

would credit whether we describe it as liberalism, whether we describe it as a kind of, you know, the the realization of of a more fully christian understanding of the ideal of human dignity. there's no there is certainly in my there ought not to be any going back. but we should also notice. and i think, christine, your comments really do point to this is that often these, you know, genuine achievements in the american political, cultural, social order are framed in terms of this kind of revolutionary depiction. it's framed terms of an overthrowing of all that previously existed that it is a part of a recidivist worldview all which has to be overcome and, transcended. so when i'm speaking especially critically of progress, i'm speaking of a kind of ideology, a progress that regards the regards that which preceded us

as a kind of blighted as a time, a time of darkness and ignorance of superstition the kind of the dark, the black myth as a sometimes described, not not not it's described as a kind of the black legend. i think it's described as a kind of of of ignorance. and i think the this ideology of progress is precisely, among other things, tocqueville that would become dominant in america which is that would make us in ways ignorant of what the future actually might hold. in other words, the ability to have a kind of much more prudential understanding of how it is we are to act in the world where uses certain features of the government or the private sector and so forth require us to bring to bear all of the knowledge of the past of history without in some being dominated by it. not to be a nostalgic.

but at the same time, not be an ideological progressive or simply seize past as this as this time that simply needs to be over overturned to overcome. i so part of the part of the book at the end of the book i talk about the need in some ways that this post liberal future will be one in which we together time. this sounds awfully theoretical philosophical. we sew together time, but it's with a very you know, it's with a very practical purpose that we have the ability to understand the goods, the past as well as the bads of the past, a genuine ability to see and assess those things in order that we can responsibly into the future. the ideology of progress in many ways relieves us of the responsibility of living responsibility of living responsibly into the future, thoughtfully into the future, because we tend to just have the view the future, take care of itself or, a phrase that one often hears. you can't, in the way of progress. in other words, it renders us

weak and just just sort of just simply makes us powerless in the face of what are suppose it inevitable cities and in the end the interest of a kind of genuine human freedom. we have to have the capacity to say certain that we might regard as a change or transform nation are going to be good precisely and there is transhumanism the good that we want right are driverless trucks the good that we want you know are there simply things we're going to simply going to be or do we have the capacity to exercise judgment? and here, i think, progress functions as a kind of ideology that makes it difficult for us as a civilization to actually deliberate over kinds of questions. one good that everyone will want is a copy of patrick's book, which is going to be on after the event. let's a question from the audience. we will go over there on the

edge. and please keep the questions brief so that we can get one or two in. yes thank you to the panelists and especially deneen, you've been instrumental in my philosophical development throughout the speech. you sort of painted liberalism as a philosophy of instability, as sort of corrosive on on social, healthy social forms. on the other hand, i think are like especially in his later work views liberalism as sort of stability admits it missed pluralism. so liberalism as sort of this bulwark, this stable bulwark against a sort of a threat of chaos, if if a particular a partizan vision of the good were to take hold in society, especially american society. so what do you make of this challenge of pluralism and how do you view post liberalism or, you know, common good

conservatives as as sort of answering challenge to to provide stable future. i know we're been been very patient, so i'll just be very brief and i would since you indicate you've read some of my previous work, i would simply point you to the last. why liberalism failed, which is really the effort to show that the claim we can have a kind, neutral or content less liberal society was always basically a myth. and even a lie. that, of course it has a content. and we're seeing that content of visibly before us. it's kind of enforced, indifferent ism some level which is you are required not to care. you're required to have judgment. and if you have judgment, if you think something is right or wrong you are no longer to be permitted in, in polite. so it has actually a content and that content becomes becomes dominant. and in fact, it becomes the basis of the form of the. so we're in a situation in which

it's not a debate between a content list neutrality and conception of the good that we have to debate over. we really are in a situation where we have debate over conceptions of the good. and i'd rather be in that debate and i would frankly rather conservatives. i remember we describe ourselves in that debate and not simply say, well, we just want to live in a neutral society in which there is basically a fundamentally in agreement that we just. let me give christine and then kevin an for a last word either in response that question or in response to other thoughts have occurred during tonight's discussion. to tell that to you, robert, actually. i would say first. but that's that's the southern gentleman in me. is that patriarchal, the sexual. yeah, that's right. yeah. we're eating away the clock christine. i'll say two things. the first is the heart of the conservative of is gratitude. and i'm grateful to patrick deneen for his career, for his work, for his book.

i read on the plane back from london last night and i enjoyed we have a thousand times more things we agree on than we have differences of opinion on most grateful for how you mentor your students. you what professors be and you're a friend of the heritage foundation. we have differences of opinion, but that's okay. the second thing is i just in heart i would say this even if i were not the president, heritage foundation, you need to tie that to the american republic. every single one of you in this room. and my take away personally from this conversation is i professor deneen would agree with this. tithes to the republic to tithe to the post liberal new regime. if that's your preferred language, please consider for working in the next administra. i mean that because if we don't do that, if all we're doing is giving our time talent and treasure to church and civil society and nonprofit all

worthy. don't get me wrong, that may not be enough. i think the lesson or one of the many great lessons of the new right of the work that patrick deneen and others have done, that that isi of always champions is we are in an era of needing to impose political power as conservatives and one of the ways we can do that in relatively cheerful daily way is to be part of an administrative that will be smaller as a result. what of what you're doing? project 2025 board well to the question very briefly, i think i'll echo patrick in saying that i'm not sure that the difference is between liberalism and chaos. i think actually one of the most interesting things about, the book that you're get to read is the description in which actually there are common norms, common sense mores that have across time and persisted in actually contained some wisdom.

that's not chaos. it may not be written by rawls. it may not be political philosophy, but there is knowledge. there. and in fact, liberalism is often standing directly. in contrast that. so that's the question as a closing note, i think i'll bring out one thing that actually, judy. senator vance, but that i think is always under-discussed the idea of a mixed this post future the mix is important we spend a lot of time talking about elites and how elites must reform themselves and elites need to have better ideas about how to run the country. and elites this than elites that you know a washington post columnist am talking to an endowed professor and the head of a think tank at a university. i just want to correct the record. i don't have an endowed chair, but maybe as a result of this book, i might. because crossfire manifests

self-interest. but it's easy to gather in rooms like these and think about how we should fix the world, make it better, and have those discussions. stay here. a real mixed constitution means moving out in the. and not just moving from catholic university to the reception across the street from catholic university to like the popular cocktail on 14th street. but actually interacting with the people with seeing those people as valuable in their own right with, viewing them not as enemies because they are on the wrong political or are of a different skin color or belief system, but members of the populace have wisdom to share who we are in community with and are bound to. there's often a feeling of wanting within elite to just come up with like a solution so that we can help the people who

are experiencing falling life expectancies. help those people out there whose lives are falling apart. we just like, but come up with a good idea and give it to them. no, we have to be them in a sense and are us. and i think that actually one of the the most important things to remember in this movement does we talk about how to the regime has to be one that is actually in a real way. so i am grateful to our panelists and to our audience. i'm also very grateful to eisai president johnny burtka, who was a final thought for us. thank you speakers and patrick and dan and luis for sponsoring the event. the last plug that i have for you. first and foremost do get a copy of patrick's book on your way out the door. and second on the back of your programs you will see a qr code an ad for isis homecoming weekend. so this is two and a half weeks from today at beautiful 20 acre campus.

and estate. we have a great it's not just panels we have jazz band. we have oysters, we've got dancing a fun time, community and friendship. and we have great speakers, including edwards, h.w. brands, buskirk and we'll be exploring the question of the great statesman artists and create heirs that have made this country so please sign up. and if under 30 years old, it's only $50 and it's an hour and ten minute train ride from dc to see you in two and a half weeks. and thanks again.