Only popular in their own countries, but also admired by numerous highly educated and idealistic westerners. The object of this included benito mussolini, adolf hitler, josejoseph stalin, fidel castrod more recently, hugo chavez. Few people remember it today, but the original lyrics from cole porters immensely popular 1931934 musical anything goes originally read, you are the talk, you are mussolini, you are the talk you are mr. Sweeney. Today it is you are at the talk and the drama and the whistlers mama. Few people today openly praise hitler or mussolini. It isnt uncommon to see men and women in our Nations Capital wearing che guevara tshirts and the American Entertainers like Michael Moore and intellectuals like norm chomsky praised the castro brothers and hugo chavez. Paul hollander spent decades trying to understand why people are attracted to authoritarianism and totalitarianism and why they persist in doing so even today after a century of incredible bloodshed perpetrated by government against their own people. Paul hollander was born in 1932 in hungary and fled to the west when the hungarian revolution of 1956 was put down by the soviet forces. Hes a wellknown american political sociologist, communist studies scholar and nonfiction author. The first book in 1973 was called soviet and american society, a comparison. In 1981, he came out with his probably best known work political pilgrims. The many faces of socialism followed in 1903 into thinking the survival of the university culture, decline and discontent of antiamericanism, critics at home and abroad, postmodern and postcommunist the end of commitment, the only superpower extravagant expectations and other books. Today we are here to talk about the book that came out last year intellectuals of the era of worship. Hollander earned a phd in sociology from Princeton University in 1963 and ba from the London School of economics in 1959. The Professor Emeritus of sociology and the university of massachusetts amherst and Center Associate of the davis center for russian and eurasian studies at harvard university. Hes a member of the Advisory Council on the victims of communism memorial foundation. Iand with that label handed over to you. Has a lot in common and i would like to draw your attention how it differs from it and i will cite occasionally. Major similarity of the two books that both have concern with political misjudgment of western intellectuals and people who review the book also focus on the similarity that they have both about the misjudgment of western political intellectuals and this, indeed, has been a longstanding preoccupation and also its somewhat controversial point as to what proportion of western intellectuals could be characterized as leftist or prosoviet or procommunist and some people criticize me for overgeneralizing and i always point out and i repeat it in this book too that we dont know because we dont know what proportion of western intellectuals were sympathetic to the soviet union or china or cuba because there are no opinions survey that address to intellectuals as such. What we know that there was clearly a portion of vehiclal intellectuals that were sympathetic to the political systems and my my approach to the stoppic also led me to propose a number of times that the prevailing conception of intellectuals need provision and i would like to read you one quote, one characterization of intellectuals which i have clearly found dated an dubious and the late edward and i quote now the figure of the intellectual is that being set apart someone able to speak the truth, courageous and angry individual worldly power is too big and imposing to be criticized and taken to task and he also said in the exact review that the real truth intellectual is obvious an outsider imposed seem esly seamlessly and university of colombia and books were required reading in numerous courses in College Campuses and was on television so not exactly a modern figure, but, again, he had intellectuals still believing or maintain but clearly dated, there was perhaps a time when intellectuals were margin of figures and, again, it also depends on what society we are talking about so i thought that the political misperceptions of intellectuals justify some revision since i obviously i found that they were capable of completely suspending the critical faculties and act like the true believers, but, again, in the book political pilgrims, my major concern about the intellectuals overall could i have my glass of water . Systems rather than focusing on leaders, now similarity between political pilgrimage and i have been interested in the connections between the personal and political attributes and the experiences and needs which influence political believes and im still interested in that. It is very tricky because, i dont purport to reduce political believes to how a person toilet trained or such thing but, on the other hand, i have been repeated by struck by connections between personal experiences and Political Attitudes as with my own case illustrates these two. Sorry about my voice. Certainly in 1960s in this country it seemed to me it was the prevalent view that the personal valid dates the political, the person political, the kind of 60s catch phrase and this originated with the left and how the personal influence political that, of course, depends on many, many things and context and in this book at tend of this book i have a long list of distinguished american intellectuals who have never been sympathizers with communist systems and movements and avoided the temptations which shows others succumb to. I show that i have been interested in other instances of the misjudgments or misperceptions of distortions of reality not only in the political sphere. Commercial advertising and, of course, in political propaganda and in general, i have been interested in the how people deal with the difference of similarity between appearance and reality and, of course, this has been obvious a major preoccupation of intellectuals appearance and reality. And you would say that the present day identity politics is also a reflection of this connection between the person and the political that some people believe that certain kinds of identities determine outlook, political outlook. How ideals influence behavior . I shamelessly quote and i think this is perhaps the key to this relationship between personal and political which is that i have written that Political Attitudes and believes often stem from nonpolitical sources, that includes selfcornous orientation, selfexpression and personal problemsolving through Political Action and immersion. That is to say that many of the intellectuals i have written about try to find answers and solutions for personal problems and discontents which couldnt really be found the solutions in the public, the social political realm. And another good common that i report to you on the matter of intellectuals and attitudes and believes comes from not so well known, he was also hungarian origin and he lived he was academic in england and wrote at some point in his life that what struck him about the involvement of progressive intellectuals in politics, that be it political commitment had fundamentally nonintellectual nature almost invariable and emotional attitude, owned very little to the process of reasoning and study that would usually associate with intellectual, end quote. So these are the general issues and interests of intellectuals. I have written about earlier and as i said, i have moved to some degree, more into a psychological direction than sociological. I have never been a quantitative sociologist. Again, the study, both of these books reflect my durable preoccupation with what i call the spiritual problems of modernity, the byproducts of modernity, or on heroic experts and special reference to social isolation and lots of meaning as decline of community and declined of social solidarity and secularration. And i am tempted to quote daniel bell, who made a good point on the subject and curse point about the problems of modernity which he called the problem of belief. He said the problem of modernity is the problem of belief and the problem is that usual falls short of responding adequately to the fullrange of men spiritual nature. It is a religious vacuum, lack of meaning in their own lives, the intellectuals who was also writing about the answersover a larger purpose in their society that terrifies them and provokes them to alienation and unappeasable indignation, end quote. So this is this is the persistence strain in my thinking of preoccupation, you know, why intellectuals made this remarkable political misjudgment. Now, one difference between political pilgrims and this book that in this book i was not limiting myself to systems and also include nazi germany and fascist italy and some of the authoritarian systems in the arab world as well as north korea, which received some admiration on the part of intellectuals. So i was interested in how the admiration of stalin might be compared with the admiration of hitler and mussolini, so thats one big difference and the other was that in this book i focused on intellectual on leaders, political leaders and dictators which i didnt do in political pilgrims. And so the range was much wider because i was interested in the broader issues of the beliefs of intellectuals and i came to the not very original conclusion that intellectuals also displayed religious yearnings in search for meaning so that and that they went along with this political hero worship of particular leaders and dictators who were now, of course, the generation of hitler and mussolini was much more shortlived for obvious reasons. But, again, there was an obvious irrational component to the attitudes and i think one of the most interesting findings was that what intellectuals admired most in these leaders, dictators had more to do with their personality than with their actual policies. Now, the intellectuals, they were this conception of kings and dictators themselves contributed to this myth because they all thought of themselves as great intellects and many of them have written books, almost all of them have written books and sort of themselves as great theorists and well, hitler too interested in art, hitler attended an exhibit of the degenerate art and so far, stalin, castro to very much in war with stalin before they were published. So they had this myth that they were also sort of fellow intellectuals and castro when western intellectuals famous sociologist when he visited cost row and lo and behold castro knew about one of his books and it was not an accident, obviously. Intellectuals actually never phenomena of what i call politics of hospitality of techniques of hospitality read by communist systems in ordinary citizens who were familiar with their writings and, of course, this made a huge impression on intellectuals who often thought that in their own countries they were underappreciated and didnt influence. So these are the two mayor differences. Im interested in the brother phenomena of political hero and not limited to the communist ones. Now, some of my major findings or conclusions, what leaders had in common . Well, apparently different political outlook and certainly different political ideologies, nazis, communists, fascists and so forth. They projected the sense of mission, i think that was very important and, again, this made a big impression of intellectuals who thought that their own politicians were rather inferior and insufficiently idealistic and politicians in western countries , revolutionists, based on ideology that claimed to explain everything. The sense can justify the worst his or her horrors of sanity and flight and i think this comes from american scientist. So, of course, western western politicians were not interested in fundamental change of society or human nature whereas the people i have written about this leaders or the dictators claim to be interested in just that. Fundamental transformation of society and human nature. And, of course, the other interesting thing of the phenomena, the call of personality, the call to personality and applied it to stalin but you could apply to mussolini and the rest of them. There was this enormous astonishing gap between the perceptions or the images of these leaders and the actual personality. I mean, obviously to use an understatement, they were not very nice people and this somehow e lighted the intellectuals and admirers and that was a huge one factor in the misperception is just ignorance. But, again, i should mention here that many people try today explain the behavior of intellectuals, western intellectuals who succumb to the illusions by power hunger, they themselves wanted power and they were under the impression that intellectuals in this country, whether they were communist or not, fascist, they had more power and more influence which they didnt have and the same leaders, hitler, moussolini and castro had them in content. So im not inclined to believe that intellectuals actually made this misjudgment because of their desire for power. I think i have a for charitable explanation which is simply that there was there was ignorance and there was unhappiness with their own society and there was there were problems, modernity, lack of meaning, lack of sense of community and also i think one thing in my opinion, very important characteristic intellectuals have in common whether or not they admired stalin or hitler, that they have High Expectations. I think you could say that this is High Expectations which, of course, into idealism and they thought that the new chapter in history could be opened by the leaders. So as to my findings, this might be called secular religious which found political expression now, most of these people didnt actually meet personally, intellectuals in question although many of them did and when they did, then, again, they made very favorable impression and these people hitler and stalin and mussolini and the rest of them were kind of projecting the personality which intellectuals found attractive. As i said, the philosopher and revolutionary idealism or the assumption or the belief that these dictators used political power wisely and benevolent and they were kind and i think this is the most important between intellectuals, they bridged gap between theory and practice. They did what they claimed to believe in. Its debatable to what it applies. What they did was authentic. Modern intellectuals specially, i think, american intellectuals have been particularly bothered by this feeling that they lived in an inauthentic society. So much of modern social criticism of western and specially american societies focused on inauthenticity rather than injustice, injustice too but inauthenticity, the critic of capitalism, critic of capital ism like advertising and public relations, products of modern capitalist society. So by contrast, this great heroic leaders seems to do what they believed in, they were authentic. And, again, the most important from the point of view of the admirers that they had good intentions, good this comes up repeatedly. It sounds like a simple triffial trivial matter. These people had good intentions even when they acknowledged that they didnt succeed to realize good intentions. Another thing that leaders, dictators give the impression that they were successfully in trying to somehow blend tradition and modernity with the emphasis on community, thats the idea that socialist i was going to say more pronounced in the case of communist systems, that they succeeded in modernizing without alienation, nazis were very much and selfconsciously involved with the notion of community, National Community as being more important than class and class division. But i think this attempt to blend was very important, belief that thats young in the countries. Now, you know, here again just to give you a few quotes of this grotesque misperceptions which western intellectuals engaged in, for example, about which he che guevara, he was the most complete human being of our age. Now, here again one has to reflect on this idea that so many western intellectuals, this was very pronounced in the 60s and 70s, obsessed with the problem of holiness or lack of holiness. So this was after the idea that in communist systems, communist societies, the division of labor will disappear. This is a newer tradition, specialization is the source of alienation. This was a remarkable observation and believed that, of course, the residents products of western societies who were not all human beings. But, again, the religious projection was so obvious in many of these instances because another wellknown intellectual, not the same class, american journalist who was perceived as a hardnosed heck finder and had news leader. And he wrote about che guevara and i call because this was reflective of religious misperceptions. In che guevara one felt and it was out of love like the perfect knight of medieval romance that he set out to combat with the powers of the world. He was like an early saint taking refuge in the desert, only there the purity of the face to be safeguarded, end quote. Then is the deprivation. But it is really the same thing as High Expectations. In other words, people feel deprived because they compare the condition or the condition of other people in the society with some ideal with some possibility or with some other societies. So real it is relative for something. When people say for example that poverty in the United States is especially intolerable because there are so many rich people and inequalities are so enormous, and the country is so rich with resources that it could be much more and inequalities could be much more readily narrow. I think this is an important idea that have High Expectations and maybe they have diminished over time. But societies could be much more improved, much more radically improved. And therefore much more critical of their own societies which have so many flaws which were familiar to them. So i think this remains the case that people have these possibilities with human nature. This again and many intellectuals had higher hopes then perhaps history or sociology would justify to the perfect ability of human nature. Again on the personal and political as i approach the end of this discussion, again, i deleted to this earlier but i just want to give you one more quote. Which comes from the 1960s radical who, he was the weatherman in this organization in america. He said, i quote we have an irreconcilable tension in our existence. Blowing up the bed thing, we relieve much of the tension. But he said so that the perceiving centers doesnt become evidence of psychological theories about radicals it should be pointed out that this is the key to his belief that it he pointed out that a psychological problem most of us have a very directly the thought of capitalism. The very virtue of capitalism and terrorism in fact is it allows spontaneous release of the frustrations caused by capitalism. I think this is a very interesting and authentic statement and that this person believed this at the time he made the statement and it so happens this is just a curious but note that i met the individual, two years ago because he was writing his memoirs when he was an undergraduate at harvard. He interviewed me. He is now a law professor and does not believing any of that. So that is an unusual example of this belief and how society can corrupt or undermine people. And i am not suggesting that society doesnt the individual im suggesting it is very difficult to draw the line between the social and the personal and the people respond to similar experiences in different ways. So i think the view of course, people like johnson wrote the very devastating critique of intellectuals, he believes, and this will be my last quote. He believed that the personal had a very negative impact that intellectuals and many of these tried to internationalize. He believed that they tend to believe society for their personal feelings which have little to do with the flaws of injustices of the political system. But i think that the two points can be reconciled. And so far, this assignment one socialization of certain entity or purpose. Or meaningless, in turn, there are these stronger social processes that we connect with modernization and social change. We certainly have these problematic impact on people including intellectuals. Anyway, i think i could talk more about this and that should be time for your questions and comments and i would just conclude by observing that a number of true believers might have diminished but there are still many left and probably they will be with us for a long time in the foreseeable future. Even the imperfections with human beings and human nature. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much. Alexander is an associate professor of politics at the university of virginia for his Research Begun with a focus on the conditions of democratic consolidation and advanced industrialized countries especially in western europe. In his book the sources of democratic consolidation, he argued that the key right of political movements formed longterm commitments to democracy only when the political risks and democracy became remarkably low as leftwing agendas moderated across time. Variation in these arrests was used to explain variation in conservative regime preferences and and regime outcomes in europes five largest countries. From 1870 france to 1980s spain. He has written for the new york times, the washington post, national review, the Weekly Standard and national affairs. He is a proud member of the academy, founding member. His research, his Current Research concerns factors affecting the size and role of government in selected cases in western europe and also in the United States. And how they influence reform of welfare states. Please help me welcome alexander. Thank you all. Thank you for organizing this event. Thank you professor hollander for joining us and sharing some highlights from your recent project. Let me run over some basic stealth situation my own comments here today. Some basics from the professors prepare professor hollanders book. We know each other a little bit would you mind if i use or refer to as paul if it doesnt sound strange . It is one juicing to another. The basic argument is that for decades, far too many, we will not attempt to quantify, but far too many western intellectuals have had a fascination with an attraction to authoritarian and even totalitarian rulers and regimes. As he had made clear today he asked why intellectuals might be especially susceptible to these views, these attractions. And then track such fascination and support regimes renting from mussolini and hitler to the soviets and other regimes Even North Korea was you might have thought would be immune to admiration. He suggests that it is difficult even impossible, to separate support for these regimes from support for the policy goals of those regimes, political social, or economic. He insists that these Dynamics Companies fascination enduring support need not in many cases, may surely not apply to the majority of intellectuals in context but the fact that intellectuals are in the general rule idealistic, and as he suggested may have higher than typical expectations on policy and other social outcomes, likely, might play a role in their capacity come to admire and defend nondemocratic projects aimed defensively for for allegedly achieving the outcomes. So that you dont have to, he works through theories, proposed by a number of important thinkers. Including peter berger, and many others. Considering in the process, whether some characteristics unique to intellectuals, for example, as has been asked in many past years, is it their distinctive social position that mixes high social prestige with middle income which would explain the political choices that so many of them have made. He adds to that formulation of inquiry, many other more pointed questions. Mike intellectuals, for example, have been attracted to what amounted to status projects because they understand themselves to be members of a selfstyled technocratic elite, attracted to top down programs which they can imagine themselves playing important roles for at least having played people like themselves. Our ideal is here at least as much in the sense of people simply fulltime engage with ideas, as special and susceptible to the charisma of extraordinary leaders, extraordinary leaders who promise to achieve outcomes that others cannot and that mundane procedures like those characteristics of democracy cannot. Our ideal is defined in that sense attracted in some special way to secular, religious, totalitarian projects in particular . In that formulation, would say that there attracted at too high a rate, not to authoritarian and even totalitarian projects that may be especially to totalitarian projects that offer an idealistic or at least allegedly and totally stick approach to social change. His book then as he suggests, catalogs specific intellectuals journeys of admiration for one dictatorship or another. Those are often examples that he quoted to you is quite explicit in many cases as being happy to abide by and sometimes even celebrate a lack of concern with constraints on governmental power. The exercise of clearly authoritarian and nondemocratic hungnam of constitutionally constrained powers of the state. And in that sense explicitly antidemocratic or explicitly reconciled with the notion of authoritarian or totalitarian exercises of power. After reading the quantity of quotes and analysis as he said through a wide range of intellectuals, i had to say that it is hard to think quite the same way about of the world if you thought well about them before to begin with. It is a very sobering read to go through the chapters that make up the bulk of the book. Reading the kinds of discourses that intellectuals and many others have been happy to generate over decades praising such a deeply obnoxious and destructive regimes, people and political projects in history. I want to focus and challenging one important aspect of pauls analysis. Although even then let me say that if my critique is right, it would, if anything conclude that his analysis is relevant to a much greater spectrum of individuals that even he portrays. So it is a critique but it is a critique that is concerned that his analysis is even more widely applicable than it might seem at first glance. It is obviously correct of him to have noticed that for more than half a century, people have asked very much including himself, to what extent this admiration by intellectuals wasnt in fluctuation and affliction excuse me, of intellectuals in particular. That there was something distinctive about that class of people, i mean class in a very loose sense and civil category people. Was it something selfselected, or peculiar to the things that brought them to their distinctive professions of scholarship and other forms of intellectualism. It is something distinctive about that authentication, is it something about the intellectual it was a habit to operate and live and informs them and it forms their values, worldviews, sense of what was imperative and what was not. I think while the focus of a particular cast was understandable, certain public intellectualism was understood to have played such a role in history in the 19th or 20th century in particular, is an understandable question. But i think that it is one that may not be optimally formulated today. Because there is, i want to submit substantial reason to think that admiration for nondemocratic procedures or practices, is today depressingly less distinctive to intellectuals and if anything, more pervasively distributed among a much wider range of people. So my critique is if anything, that these are narrowly and with thoroughly depress us all. I would base my remaining marks on the proposition that three things have become much more pervasive in recent times. Let me less than quickly and go back and discuss them in more detail for things Political Polarization that the us, has recast political teams and left, right ideological terms, much more thoroughly than in the past. I do not mean more intensely but more thoroughly than most of the postwar period. Most obviously in the United States . Secondly, accompanying tribalism that operates often by indicating to people, not just intellectuals but a much wider range of people in society that they should feel and should have voiced loyalties to people, positions, policies, actions. That they understand to be on their side of a binary left right political divide and third, Something Else, the last thing that has become much more pervasive in our times. Something that follows logically from the polarization and intensification of tribalism, quite fortunately which is a preference for procedural norms, attitudes towards political procedures or procedural norms that based solely an individuals mind on whether a given decision rule, i will explain that in a moment lead to the outcome that they want. On a casebycase basis. Not out of some deeper sense that procedural norms matter and are to be valued independently of the outcomes they lead to. And certainly on a casebycase basis. Let me develop these three points in a little more detail. First is that the ideological polarization and intensified serving the United States in the postwar period. This is a point so familiar that there is little need to describe the intensifying sorting of americans in the more selfconsciously left and right subcultures. It suffices to say im old enough to remember a Republican Party that continue to substantial liberal ring antidemocratic part of the continued substantial conservative one. Something almost meaningless to people half my age. That ensure that prior state of affairs substantial overlap between the two parties, ideologically for example in both houses of congress, some for all practices and purposes does not exist at all today. Once famous mentor developing that the republicans leftmost center is still noticeably to the right of the democrats rightmost sender. Something that was absolutely not the case when i was younger. The earlier state of affairs was partly but not entirely driven by regional political identities and the change has been substantially but not entirely driven by nationalization of politics that overcame or superseded the regional distinctions. My second point is the effective political tribalism. So why is the polarization relevant to this discussion . I submit that because that change of the polarization seems to have had at least one emergent property specifically and intensification of the tribalism to which politics is always prone to some degree. Social psychologist have long said that human beings are prone to confirmation bias. By which we are more likely to apply very different standards of skepticism to information that either reinforces our existing preferred views versus challenges them. The political equivalent is a tendency in this what i mean by tribalism. Two boys and feel support for a political position, people, proposals that one associates with ones political allies and to oppose those associated with ones opponents. And third, this issue of procedural norms. I am concerned that those two developments that polarization in the intensifying tribalism still spillover into peoples attitudes view not just towards individual policies but toward also the procedural norms there which policies and democracies anyway are formulated by procedural norms i simply mean decision rules, the rules that organize collective decisionmaking, democracy itself a procedural norm, and any specific constraints on the exercise of state powers of procedural norms. But you also have diverse norms within procedural norms within democracy. Different electoral roles, different constitutional arrangements. The notion of peoples attitude toward procedural norms may be driven more by ideology than any kind of independent commitment to the norm itself might come as no surprise in a town in which most people view on the filibuster seem to be decided by which party as a majority in the senate this year. Not everyone switches their view on the filibuster whether it is desirable or not based on who has the current majority as much as the new york Editorial Board they see fit to change their view on the norm. My concern here is that that tendency to subordinate ones attitudes towards political norms to the outcomes of the policy outcomes are likely to lead to in the short term, can extend to issues much more central to the issue of democracy itself than just a technical matter like a rule within one legislature. And, it can extend worryingly to many more people than just the political junkies that sit around worrying about this filibuster. Bear with me while describe some research that im currently doing with a coworker. We are trying to innovate on a resource has been done for decades on the issue of social scientists call authoritarian values which is related to but does not mean exactly the same thing is the word that when we use it more generally. We have asked a large amount americans whether they have would support a series of Government Policies or practices that infringe on core Civil Liberties including freedoms of speech, assembly, privacy, due process and other core Civil Liberties. I will currently civil if i find that i insistently purchased today but are already evocative. And then a simplification which is a little premature that responding seems pretty consistent and pretty significantly more likely to support such policies that infringe core Civil Liberties when they are championed by politicians described in terms ideologically sympathetic to the respondent and second, when the policies are applied to or targets groups of citizens, cocitizens identified as ideologically distant from that respondent. In other words, it may well be the case that self identified american liberals are considerably more likely to support naked infringements on Political Liberties like the freedom to disseminate and handout political flyers expressing a point of view in a public place. And so on and so forth. When they are championed by politicians described as liberal and apply to groups clearly associated with conservatives and conservatives are considerably more likely to support those infringements on the basement and championed by politicians identified as conservative and directed groups clearly associated as it liberal or progressive. A more nuanced discussion of our findings will emerge with time but for now let me just say why i hope this to pauls book. My first thought when reading this aside from being struck by the incredible range of commentary that he unearthed was to ask whether he is sure that many average citizens and not just intellectuals, might not form aberrations for nondemocratic processes, procedures, regimes, rulers associated with their side of the political divide. That they are seen as being on the left leg responded to on the right leg and respondent is whether in fact that admiration may not extend far for deep into the population then nearly intellectuals. To the extent that many others are susceptible to the same aberrations. Intellectuals and average citizens might not function in fundamentally different ways. I think anyway, i will insist that is already hinted at at least in passing in some of pauls empirical chapters in which he sees fit to combine comments with some people who are clearly identifiable as professional intellectuals to others that do not seem to me to fit that description is neatly including no particular disrespect intended, Hillary Clinton and jimmy carter. Intellectuals may be distinct from average citizens and that they have tended to and perhaps understandably, polarized ideologically earlier and more consistently or thoroughly than other people have in the countries but to the extent that a willingness to apologize for abuses of power, a willingness to abide by or in some cases even champion a leader or regime with which one has some left or right highly logical infinities and in some cases not just apologize, for the uses and abuses of power but maybe even admire them because they are understood to reflect a pursuit of goals. So passionate that one is want to forgo procedural constraints in the process to the extent that it describes more and more of our fellow citizens and not just some intellectuals. We have a lot to write about it seems to me. Deeply concerning peer that is the sense in which my critique of pauls book, the child i wanted to make today is to suggest that the dynamics he talks about our if anything applicable to more people than he thinks or discusses. Which should be enough to run our day. Given his research into more topics, professor hollander both appreciate the offer no [applause] i will turn it over to Paul Hollander for comments and then back to Gerard Alexander and then we will open to q a. I just want to comment. One aspect of these remarks as to why i was focusing on intellectuals and nowhere did i dispute that these attitudes are limited to intellectuals. And i just and several points in the book the similarity between intellectuals and nonintellectuals and unsavory political figures. There were three reasons why i have been preoccupied with intellectuals. One is because they have been familiar. Other than intellectual environment all of my adult life. Undergraduate, graduate student, academic teacher, harvard, university of massachusetts. These are the people that i have known fairly well. But i think more important that i focused on intellectuals because we including myself, expect more of them. Or used to expect more of them. Intellectuals after all, they claim virtue as being critical intellectuals. And many are unreflective and ignorance i think this is a chocking contrast to the image and grab self perception. Finally the third reason i was interested in intellectuals, because ive always been interested in ideals and the inference of ideas on behavior. And other people more subconsciously hold onto certain ideas and try to incorporate them into their behavior. So this has been the reasons. Thank you. We will open to q a. And i would ask you to please wait. Please wait until the microphone gets to you. State your question in the form of a question please rather than a comet because other people are waiting to ask their own questions. And please tell us who you are and who you work for if indeed, you have a job. [laughter] in the back. Thank you. Im giuliana. With the Alexander Hamilton institute for the study of western civilization. It is an honor and a pleasure to be here and i want to thank you for hosting both of these wonderful speakers. The question that i have is specifically to gerard. Because i think he puts his finger on the key reason why professor hollanders discussion is indeed so relevant today. Because what he discusses is the utopian dimension of both left and right. While you indicate that there is indeed one third relevant perspective and that is the procedural. The procedural of course is whether the libertarians are all about. Mainly to allow for a system that promotes the liberty of people whether they are preferences are left or right. Whatever that means. To pursue those interests. The specific question is, and perhaps both of you if you like. What is left and right mean nowadays . Because after all, when we speak of left, and so far this utopianism, liberal fascism is for instance, goldberg refers to as rightwing and leftwing together. But then what is left . Is it liberal . Thank you very much. Thank you joanna. It is good to see you. This concern with procedural norms is not a coincidence. I bring it up here of all places. It is a concern with you and it sometimes fails to us, those of who take the classical formulations seriously like the regis described it as a set of rules, within which a great deal of activity can happen of all kinds of not just diverse swords but unpredictable swords and to allow this to rain and driving that way. The thousand flowers blooming. But one does worry that as with so many other things, that is not the instinct of large numbers of people. And i do fear that the question could be misstated. Could say that for many decades, Many Americans did seem devoted to procedural constraints of the times we talked about. Nowadays it seems less so. How can we recover that . What may have changed . I think the reason may be wrongly form that it is its possible of course that what made that willingness to see power constrained and filibuster survivor, whatever the specific example may have been, due process, freespeech rights, was because for particular historical reasons, american politics were jumbled and complicated enough that people from many different perspectives could say who knows how the effects of this world will shake out. I can imagine myself being a minority in some issues but a majority and others. Better to preserve a framework in which managers can thrive in which minorities like i may be at times, can be protected peer freespeech going to be an obvious one. With Political Polarization and sorting of the country seen over decades, members of big political groups feel often tempted to conclude that they are a majority. For the is a could imagine remaining one. For many years. I suspect i have no evidence on this, that it matters that in the last 15 years, and enormous number of progressives have convinced themselves that history is on their side. Theyre going to be a majority. In which case some of the reasons to inhibit yourself with procedural constraints, to me it seems to follow it. The perception that you will be in charge of history would have survived the last 12 months of american politics is opaque to me. I do not think it is a coincidence that the voicing is most fully articulated on campuses. Where a certain brand of campus activist sees themselves as overwhelmingly powerful and highly unlikely to be dislodged anytime soon. Once you have left the campus gates, america presents with so much more complexity that you think if anything to take away from last year, would have been a revalidation of caution and concern with liberties and rights and protections. As a pervasive phenomenon to be enjoyed by all including oneself. But we dont seem to be in a moment of realization and appreciation of that. The only thing that i might add is that i fully agree that many of my findings are relevant today and i have two pages devoted to the current president. I think to summarize the relevant today, we continue to have evidence of this immense Human Capacity for irrational beliefs. On accuracy in academia, my only question is, what does a public intellectual do when the philosopher anyone . I waited for the narrative to emerge with time that princes, the death of chavez, replacing with a mild theocracy that took venezuela a much darker direction or Something Like that. I mean sort of, just to play off of pulsepoint of the irrationality thrives as a key component of the human personality for the ability to talk oneself into a rationalized one choices, i wouldnt say it seems bottomless, but is capacious. I would add that i wonder what evolutionary psychologist would say about this human quality to impress irrational and ultimately selfdefeating beliefs. Great idea for the next one. Anyone on that side . I am obviously, we have seen intellectuals coming down. And suddenly, when things are almost as bad as they have ever been, of comes goldman sachs, this horrific government. Where does that fit into with intellectuals . Where has been the upper floors from the non [inaudible] is not the sounds of many intellectuals what has worsened here . Do you wish to direct your question to anyone specifically . [inaudible] this applies not just to chavez but to other cases also. May there be a very few intellectuals who publicly renounce the earlier mistaken beliefs. There have been some people who had this kind of courage and brought about it. We have tons of books like the famous book edited by the british abut there are some of the intellectuals that have talked about the police. It is a difficult process and it might have been more difficult in this country because they used to be this huge subcultures of these beliefs. Especially on campuses. So a lot of groups and people dont like to admit that they make serious mistakes. I mean it is very rare. Is it rare specifically because in a sense it is a secular religion, a worldview which they have not developed and for decades, we cannot just dismiss this. That is and may even apply to personal relationships. When people make some obvious mistake. You know like a bad marriage. It is very common. Nothing political about it. It is difficult to examine ones motives and why did i make this mistake, once i picked this person . Human beings are not made that way to wallow in their mistakes. Yes, sir . Robert, George Washington university. I am wondering if we need to look at the definition of what is an intellectual and to what extent there is a certain amount of selffulfilling prophecy or selfreferential aspect to it. That is, what separates an intellectual from a journeyman, historian or political scientist at the local State Teachers College for may very well be writing in his or her field. But does not achieve the status of intellectual quote unquote. And i am wondering if embracing Totalitarian Movements to some extent helps propel an individual into the ranks of intellectuals. One that is taken a position that is kind of outrageous and therefore, gains a certain amount of notoriety. While also creating a support system from supporters of the Totalitarian Movement. That indeed, for most individuals, ideas beyond that which might be the ordinaries scrivener who happens to be again a professor of Political Science or history and is writing but is not necessarily, does not necessarily gain the profile. Does the very act of embracing a Totalitarian Movement to some extent helped create this image that this person is an intellectual . I wrote a great deal about this matter, definitions of intellectuals. In both this book and this is a slippery concept and people disagree. Especially when you say who is a true intellectual . And i propose that there have been positive and negative stereotypes of intellectuals. And something i forgot to mention, a concept of the misjudgment of intellectuals. That day too, like ordinary people have problems with the sense of identity and perhaps intellectuals have problems with their sense of identity and therefore taking certain political stance had to promote or bolster sense of identity. But the question is, i dont think of intellectuals, people that are highly specialized and study insects for example. But there basically people who are preoccupied with problematic matters which are social and political, not highly specialized. And also i think we expect intellectuals to be social critics. But we can take intellectuals as being fearless social critics and idealists or we can think of the impractical and not competent true believers and idealists who are looking for something that is unattainable. I do not want to comment too much on the particular status and nature of intellectuals after having a point that maybe theyre not, we should not limit our focus to them. But i would not be the first by any means and paul has obviously been a great deal on how we should think about the intellectuals for a category of people. But i would hardly be the first to point out that one big shift from this high watermarks of late 19th century and early in her war 20th century intellectualizing is how much the massive growth of the universities and colleges since 1945 has changed the face of intellectualizing. To the point where i think many people would use the term scholar or academic and intellectual almost interchangeably. As a lack of oxygen has been sucked out of this does that said, i think most, your instinct is that a lot of academics would not be called intellectuals. There were sorts of bureaucrats of ideas but not intellectual innovators, not big thinkers, they are not necessarily living a life of ideas in the sense of which we might have made that earlier in the 20 centuries. One comfort that should come from that i think is that many of them are not the kinds of romantic idealists and theorists might be attracted to fullblown totalitarian projects. And i think that is daniel bodins notion that we live of some high watermark it still feels past. I dont think we are ushering in a new age of that. The kind of high watermark of 20th century total listed ideology does seem as past now as it did 20 years ago or 30 years ago. What should be more worrisome is the mundane erosions, not the great big one. So its not a resurgence of totalitarian instance on the part of academics. It is the notion that huge numbers of them might be relaxing their sense of due process and speed should be tolerated across a wide array of youths in their society. At the surface, the first question seems a lot less worrisome than some coming out for or sympathetic to totalitarian thought in the world. It is obvious because it is disturbing. It seems less grand. American university. I am just similarly curious. We definitely have been talking a lot about a lot of standards that are defined. Considering ideology, intellectuals and definitely the main source of debate in the United States as well as across the entire world has shifted a lot of the narratives away from an ideological debate. Away from debate that involves intellectuals to rather there is a claim of an antiintellectual movement. Of a sorted debate that is similarly as professor alexander was just saying, a focus on rather your party winning, you taking points fear side rather than your ideology moving forward in and of itself. In this sort of society, where we have ideologies intellectualism potentially going by the wayside, what then do we see when we come to positions where there is political influence that is negotiated under procedures, it really all we have anymore is procedures. What then is the future of our political identity is looking like . Anybody . I am not sure if i spoke to a question i would just like to Say Something i should have said earlier which is relevant to the discussion. I did not use expression which i used in my book. Intellectuals. [inaudible] i think its important for understanding intellectuals and the second point about intellectuals that we have this between these high levels of individualism and the communitarian impulses. Which is so that it is a conflict, a stalemate. Whether you were interested in community or selfrealization. Okay. Gentlemen in the back and then we will move to the center. Lets make this as quick as possible. Im a journalist. How would you regard intellectual admiration for benign and acceptable authoritarian leaders like who has been praised by henry kissinger, paul volker, and such. Thank you. I think it is susceptible to the same kind of analysis. One was more sympathetic to the outcomes, the policies that they were understood to have champion, there is a tendency to be more tolerant of procedural nicety, their ignoring procedural niceties along the way. Tom friedman finding things admirable about beijings decisive Decision Making on this issue or that. If you are asking whether this is as applicable across the spectrum i think the answer is yes. In a way we are being invited to have a conversation about some free marketeers. The controversy and the notion of buchanan and others have been indulgent of peter shea and other government that compromised liberties and pursuit of freemarket goals be weather turns out to apply to buchanan after all, it turns out is more complicated than she may have thought. But i see no reason why you shouldnt have that conversation and investigate that just as much. Because if we are right that these are psychological predilections and i see no reason why they should not be the only thing that i would like to add that intellectuals, ive been talking about, they are not obviously some intellectuals are. Basically they are oriented because they are idealistic and they think that the politicians just deal with trivial matters. And are overly trying to compromise in they disagree with that. Okay. Lets go to the back. And then will have time for a couple more. Thank you. Roger, cato institute. Picking up on the theme that calls bases more applicable. Combine that with utopianism and irrational human beings that youve both spoken of. That irrationality is of course not universal. Some of us like to believe that. And so, i would ask, does your thesis that we are more than ever seems to be correct. Suggests that we are, it cries out for an explanation. Why that is so. And there is one possible explanation that is the welfare state gets larger and larger, what we want to look at is the behavior at the margin where people are more inclined toward irrational explanation for the tribalism and so forth. Is that a possible explanation of why it is we are more divided and that it does not pay to be rational under those circumstances. I suspect paul will have thoughts on this as well but let me just. apolls have been done that they are more likely to support a policy with politicians that they identify with. If they say it is simply my people are doing, then im probably okay with it. Even if in the question is yes about identical policies. Then they come across as sort of purely hypothetical or laboratory ready kind of experiment in the sense that notice we dont see the two parties actually supporting the same policies we do find liberals and progressives much more consistently supporting singlepayer and conservatives much more consistently supporting Something Else whatever it is this week. And in that sense, notice that while respondents may say in a service experiment that i will do whatever my sides is, the two sides dusan for some radically different substantially Different Things and in essence you might say it doesnt carry over into the real world because people really do sort by different kinds of goals and that we also know that progressives who found mass surveillance techniques by the National Security state really disturbing under george bush suddenly found them extra no intolerable under obama. That is just as in the Laboratory Findings dont in fact i mean are not limited to the laboratory or are limited to just hypotheticals to which respondents are presented. It does carry into some realworld behavior and it would appear, that said, the possibilities that they are saying the progressives in the scenario and in that example saying that i dont care if he does mass surveillance, thats fine because he is for healthcare. And we knew the second half of that sentence. The tribalism is not just that these are my people that these are my people because. Certain issues here and now are what identify that and welfare state issues may play a significant role in that. I would not be surprised to find that what was socalled lifestyle issues or cultural connotations for many equally important. I think that is an Interesting Research agenda right there. Only very general comments about polarization in american society. I think this is always been a society where they are High Expectations. And maybe you would say that it generates High Expectations and in essence is the most modern society because people with the highest expectations and not just intellectuals but ordinary people. I think High Expectations are likely to lead to pluralized conceptions of what is a good society. Which but yes, there has been polarization. It has to do with this conflicting expectations. Back to gentleman with his hand up. Then we moved to the center and finish. We have about five minutes left. Is the problem because we are so segregating into groups and saying i really dont know anyone like that so basically everything Charles Murray explores in his coming apart and i have been thinking for some time that maybe we need a different kind of political redistricting to maximize competitiveness and lessen the advantages of incumbency and the dominant political parties. Thank you. Not unsympathetic important experiment of sorting has become geographical purity which gives the redistricting we have think about would be transcendental he created. We would have to rethink the fundamentals of the geographic for example would be a basis which would be a revolution in our thinking on the subject. Yes, sir. Stephen sure. I thought a very interesting discussion. Two brief points. I for one, there is nothing really new and in digging out quotations in the last hundred years on intellectuals. But an inherent bias in pushing people that went off the deep end on left and right. One quote really obstructed to find intellectuals of many whom lost their defense and liberal capital values and democracy. The other point is that have been true conversions. There was a group called the dad that failed. People who gave of infatuation and in the maturity, moved towards the center. So i dont think it is always instructive just to take an actor or a quotation of someone who said something as a drunken undergraduate and then 10 years later sober it up. It is another story of people reported, never they go to the deathbeds with the same totalitarian impulses that sustain them through their lives. I am aware of this. And i have a lot of book on the same book on the same scenario. And in this book i have in the last chapter a list of intellectuals who the big question is, why some people go one way and the other in on the other way. I have not been able to answer the question. Im very sorry. I guess it is a testament to the quality of the conversation that there are so many questions in the audience that have been unanswered. Unfortunately we had to end this here. I will invite you to join us for lunch on the second floor. Thank you for coming and thank you to our speakers. [applause] [inaudible conversations] you are watching booktv on cspan2. Television for serious readers. This is our prime timeline appeared tonight at 7 pm eastern watched the 70th Anniversary Party with authors such as ann coulter, sebastian and dave clark presented eight nbc news correspondent reflecting on coverage of the Trump Campaign in the 2016 president ial election. On booktvs afterwords at 9 pm, the former host of cbs of faith the nation examines the impact of changing technology on journalism. And at 10 oclock susan gates former Vice President of Public Policy at freddie mac talks about the problems that led to the collapse of the Mortgage Company in 2008. And we wrap up our prime time programming at 11 10 pm eastern with nelson demille. He provides insight into his writing and the underpinnings for his latest novel, in a conversation with former congressman steve israel. Thatll happen tonight on cspan2s booktv. Heres a look at some authors recently featured on booktvs after words our weekly Author Interview program perform a fox news anchor carlson talked about challenges of women that had been sexually harassed in the workplace. Gradually discuss life and political career of newt gingrich. And msnbc contributor toward sites invited thoughts on the conservative movement in america. In the coming weeks on after words retired astronaut scott kelly will discuss his recordsetting year for the International Space station. Then Jeanette Conan will report on the work of her grandfather. Manhattan project scientist james brian this weekend on after words for destination anchor, bob. Quickly attracted pictures as the opposition party. As people that somehow seem to want to run the government or want to run campaigns. That is not what we do. What we do is, remember first of all, politicians deliver a message. That is what they are supposed to do. Our job is to check out the message and find out if it is true or false and what the impact will be on the government. That is the assignment that the founders gave us. And it is also a crucial part of democracy. You cannot have our form of government unless citizens have access to independently gathered information. That they can compare to the governments version of events. And then they decide what to do about it. And if we do that, we performed a crucial role. Im not sure that you can have democracy as we know it without that. I think it is as important and as the right to vote. After words airs