one thinks of, among others, formule, patrick, deneen and dc. all these philosophers that the distinctively modern or metaphysics informs the political speculations of the founders compromises, the practical arrangements that they put in place. so the question naturally arises who has this at least relatively the right? the fusion+ whom i was praising earlier with complete. or these neo integrals who might be more sensitive. the issues i've just been raising is american style liberalism with or repugnant to catholic christianity. no adequate answer to that question would. take me again far beyond the confines of this presentation. but at the risk sounding a tad facile, i would venture to respond both. my position is that the american polity is fundamentally moderate in form and inspiration, but remains conditioned by certain deeply held religious assumptions. it's a hobbesian lockean system, but with overtones of the christian worldview that still haunted the minds, the founders, and perhaps more importantly shaped the souls of the first america