Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Her next speaker is here and its Patrick Dineen professor Political Science for prior to joining notre dame in 2012 he taught at Princeton University and Georgetown University paper in 2,522,070 served as speechwriter to the director of the u. S. Information agency. His teaching and writings focused on the history of political thought american political thought liberalism conservatism and constitutionalism. His most recent book is regime change toward a post liberal future. In his previous monograph why liberalism failed was praised by president obama and translated into over 20 languages. Patrick stalwart support of the programs include taking this exam flight from South Carolina this morning. Patrick thank you for being here and we look forward to your discussion of the american regime and its institution and its future. [applause] thank you so very much dr. Baron and thank you for inviting me and i cant express how honored and delighted i am to be here. This is a bit of the makeup appearance. I was slated to appear with dr. Burger with who you just heard from in a bit of the debate right before covid happened so he did it on line and not being allowed to come to the Naval Academy, one of those import unfortunate things that didnt happen during that time. Im delighted now to be here. I have slightly change the title of post liberalism because i dont want to talk about a set of alternatives that are today very much in our midst in the midst of a kind of crisis of liberalism and discussed im assuming having seen the program and heard a little bit of the last panel. In many ways im just going to state it as a kind of stipulation stipulate a claim which is we are in a post liberal time. Liberalism and the way in which you heard the last panel that it used to be in some respects much better and there was a certain amount of nostalgia for further year it might be the 1950s, the 1900s the turnofthecentury whatever the timeframe was when we are looking back and people are looking back and saying liberalism used to be much better shape than the political order was once in better shape and now its not so theres a yearning to bring Something Back or correct some aspects of the current moment. We are in a post liberal moment because the very thing the speaker who will be following me after lunch was celebrating in 1989 in many ways those have come to an end. The condition in 1989 there was a confidence about the american project and the liberal project. It was an age not only of americas triumph but the global triumph of liberals famously argued in 1989. There was no other ideological competitor. There was no other nation even though there were other nations that werent liberal there was no nation that had a viable alternative that could be expected to be longterm. This was the beginning of whether you want to call at the age of globalization age of neoliberalism a globalized economy a globalized culture of liberalism a competent about the american order that was to be a universal order the entire globe. That is come to an end and we are in a post liberal age. Weve seen the end of globalization as a kind of still exist in some respects but it is some more ideology that has come to an end. Thomas friedman once had a theory which is that any country with a mcdonalds will never go to war with another country with him at donalds. This was a a mcdonalds peace. But it turns out there was a mcdonalds in moscow and in mcdonalds in kyiv so that bob does visas have been decidedly disproven. Easing the economic moment where both parties now are in favor of increasing Domestic Production of going after global straddling monopolies, tech mola monopolies and joe bidens sec appointee embraced by j. D. Bans and josh hawley the kind of growing sense that there needs to be a restraint of this globalized neoliberal moment in the course we have witnessed an uprising all around the world of liberal societies against the open society of borderless world, world in which nations receded in their central importance in the global identity. What pico iyer once called the global soul will take its place there was a quote in an institution nice to teach at in my building at Georgetown University which began by saying the age of nations and that seems not to be the case. So in many ways we are in a liberal moment and the question i want to place before you and myself is what kind of post liberal are we going to have . Are we going to endorse and are we going to see . I think in some ways to begin with this reflection in a way i want to prospectively debate a little bit with the speaker who will be following me who i think in many ways like a number of the speakers over this last couple of days yesterday and today to pine for something of a lost golden age of liberalism which for him was 1989. That was the peak year of the liberalism that marked the end of history. But notice it didnt last very long. In 2001 Francis Fukuyama suggested that maybe history wasnt quite done yet. And in 2016 he said and as many people said it seems the age of liberal hegemony is over. Brexit was passed in donald trump was elected. Having gone are my confidence about the end of history now we see a kind of them certainly a kind of nostalgia for history the kind of past that is history has gone on and when Francis Fukuyama wrote that part in the book he was in his hegelian stage, his high hegelian moment that history was a kind of unfolding and that unfolding as it took place in the modern world they unfolding until we reached the point that we discovered not because it was a theoretical matter but because it was a historical matter. There was an answer to the question which had riddles and puzzles political since socrates we have an answer in 1989 but thats the regime and the only regime in this big alien moment is liberal democracy. What i want to suggest today is docked or fukuyama wasnt hegelian enough because to claim that history was to ignore a basic insight that seems to be hegelian but its the entry to the question of what is the best regime itself had a problem. Most of not all political answers tend to have it and the problem it had which was recognized for a very long time by among others alexis de tocqueville and others that liberalism itself has an internal instability. Its marred and marked by an instability that makes the claim that this is the end of history. This is the final answer to the question that makes this answer and probable. It makes answer probable because of this internal instability that pushes into Something Else. She pushes it to become Something Else that seems to be opposite but arises from the logic of liberalism. Internal contradictions push it to begin something that is on the one hand you liberal but on the other hand arises from the very heart, rises from its core. Its not innocent unrelated to it. It is its progeny and it gives its. One way of exemplifying this claim is to remark on something i just finished teaching a class that i missed yesterday at notre dame. John stuart mills on liberty and theres a real paradox that of john mills great works on liberty. And which in many ways he acknowledge is that what we might think of from the years 1989 or 1955 that in many ways what we think of as the high point of realize liberalism society or freedom as society of free inquiry something that many conservatives and universities opined for decided by free strength of ideas. And mels on telling represents a tenuous middle position. It is in some sense is mills argues a good and necessary end in itself free inquiry questioning but its also openness and questioning and liberty itself is a means to another and not merely liberty. So begins the great work with the following claim that even though there has been a success in the liberal project of winning limits on government restraining the arbitrary power of political rulers. Nevertheless there is still a real absence of freedom in the society in a big story in era a lack of genuine freedom even as the government is with limited that people steal feel oppressed by the power of Public Opinion by the power of the majority and de tocqueville hypocrisy in america he left and its exactly what ive been thinking about he writes in condemnation of what he calls the despotism of tradition which he says even in society thats formerly free this governance in a deep and pervasive way it governs how we think and how we act and how we can express ourselves. Even if if we have a lot of rights we tend to be conforming. And the more democratic the society becomes which was becoming that time the more that power up Public Opinion will activate a powerful and force in the entire book is written as a defense of those who are freethinkers, does who engage in experiments of living and experiments of living which he says will allow for the realization and the further he of human beings as creatures who can enjoy a utility in its fullest sense which is utility of human beings as progressive. But notice the claim in the argument hes making here that liberty serves the end of progress. It serves the end of moving society out of its customary and traditional form, challenging the despotism and ultimately quite likely overturning it so when we just heard from dr. 11 about the ways in which aspects of Civil Society and traditional Civil Society have been eroded this would be to mills to light. This would be pruest Proof Positive that a liberal society will relieve us from despotism and makes it more progressive. Those who challenge and introduce the form of skepticism toward the customary in the traditional and the name of progress but heres the paradox. Mill recognizes that society opening inquiries and skepticism over soap and many of the questions that are being challenged and result in those questions getting new answers. Being resolved now on the side of the progressive and transgressive view of things at this open society will increasingly answer more and more questions and even says at one point such a society will start to look a lot like what was once an orthodox and will have a new orthodoxy and it he said it suggested such a situation as more and more questions are solved we may need to have some people around who will ask the challenging questions, a version of the catholic idea of the vatican. This is what professor george of princeton are posers should be the case. Princeton or the now retired Harvey Mansfield or Robbie George of princeton. We need Viewpoint Diversity so you are too comfortable but notice what no suggesting but to go from one type of despotism of custom to a new orthodoxy with only a progressive orthodoxy, the Trends Recent orthodoxy in which the traditional forms have been overthrown. And the kind of celebration of transgression takes its place. This starts to sound familiar to you and it starts to sound like the modern university, its not without some reason. Why is it that they universities have gone from being bastions of religious beliefs in the despotism of the university of notre dame would have been one of those institutions that once were regarded as a institution and had a theology and students had to learn and know that theology. And then through the freespeech domain all of those formerly religious institutions slather old orthodoxies overturned and new ones were governing those institutions. Those orthodoxies now can be questions and if you question them you could be fired or at the very least youll be the subject of withering criticism. By your classmates and faculty and so on. Notice what im pointing to here. What we think of today as to liberalism on her our College Campuses is not the opposite of liberalism. It is its. It comes from within it and arises from its very logic. It produces a post liberalism. It produces the thing that is in some ways you could save destined to become a bashur has a difficult time not becoming that. This and stability within liberalism was recognized by none other than the great political philosopher whose students. Most of the speakers today the analyst from all. The panelists Francis Fukuyama the great germanamerican political philosopher. Strauss recognized the profound instability within liberalism and articulated this in a really profound and masterful analysis of all maternity in which he recognized the way in which liberalism itself would generate in some ways an opposite but also its. It was called the three waves of modernity and it was a speech he gave in 1964 published posthumously in a collection. In his essay he argued maternity has unfolded in the series of ways and the image comes the republic recognizing the three waves that have to be introduced to create those institutions. The men and women being equal raising children in common and philosophers becoming kings or vice versa. Strauss is telling in a very hegelian way the three waves are they in three ideologies of the 20th century in each one arises from the other and the image of wave while its no pill to playdough is quite intentional because of the very any time in indianapolis and you were in the navy when you look at waves you notice something about them. One wave comes crashing in and goes out and it fills in the next wave and it makes a least part of the next wave and each successive wave is partly its own and partly what preceded it. This is the appeal of the image of waves. Sperry hegelian in its understanding. Strauss argued maternity which have been and are greeted by figures such as mana gave rise to three waves of modernity. Those waves were the first wave was modern natural rights of philosophy inaugurated by thomas hobbs, john locke and would include machiavelli and. This is the philosophy of social contract theory because it inspired our Founding Fathers philosophy that we would recognize as a liberal. The second wave was a response to the first wave and strauss is telling it arose as a challenge to the first way but also from the first wave. It was a modification of the social contract. If corsets the preeminent example a way of retelling the story to achieve a certain different and in a particular progress and this is what makes mill mill straddles the two waves. He appeals to classic liberalism put in the name of progress. He has become a transitional figure in the third wave of modernity and the tail end of some q a talking about nietzsche so here he is again but the third wave of modernity as a critique of the first three waves that arises from the logic of those first two waves. You have these three successive breaking waves of philosophy which in strausss view ended up having corresponding regimes and nations. In the 20th century or you could seed the 20th century was the century of the working out at the logic of the three waves and what you will notice is three waves developed historically the United States first which also happens to be the earliest of the philosophies in the three waves of modernity then you have the rise of marxism which is headquartered in the soviet union and subsequent to that the nietzschean happening not put the family in order and they are defeated in order backwards. They are overcome in order. In many ways Francis Fukuyama was a very good student of strauss or a student of the student of strauss and seeing a Historical Development and that the answer to the question what is the best regime needs to be once those waves recede what is left in a democracy. Some confidence about that in 1989 seem to be in many ways unjustified. What this argument that strauss made captures is these three things seem to be independent options. The state from each other least at that moment in that historical moment but from where we are right now it looks much more like a alien phenomenon in which the three coexist precisely because they arise from liberalism so once the liberalism wins its going to continue to generate those successors albeit now in a different form. We are able to look at the moment where you we are in the midst of these three ways. They are all around us. There are crashing in on us is not just one thing and thats why we can talk about post liberalism not just as a theory. Here in a tear because of liberalism because of the developments within the liberalism itself but i just mention one of those. What we now call will kunis, woke progressive identity politics is often regarded as the contradiction to liberalism and by the ways you will hear it spoken that quite often by conservative critics is that its a form of cultural marxism. It worked presents a new form of marxism and it comes out of the realm of culture as opposed to economics and thats why its not the much focused on class warfare as well as capturing institutions. Things like mark cusa marcuse in recent marxists come to mind as for exemplifying this cultural marxism and its not inaccurate to see it at the level of marxist response because its a response to liberalism. Like marxism you have the kind of victim class and an oppressor class and if you cant designate yourself or your group as a victim you were going to make claims on the system against the oppressors the core feature of marxism. The proletariat and the boers was the now its whatever their Victim Groups arent those expand every year and the are abstractions days to secure power under this marxist system one house to establish oneself as a victim. To have a revolution and replace the oppressor especially people are men and christians and so on and so forth. This is true that this does have features of that second wave that seem to be opposite. As ive just been stating its inaccurate to see as the departure of what we call it the liberalism on College Campuses as ive been suggesting with my brief summary of John Stuart Mill arises from the hearts. In fact the playbook for what we see on College Campuses by the second wave in our midst was written by a gentleman whose name was herbert mark cusa. In 1965 herbert mark cusa published an essay called repressive tolerance and if you read it its not long and if you read this essay youll be stunned by how not just help prophetic it is that how its after that of the playbook for how in particular a Progressive Left will take over the institutions and the argument is that progressives need to understand that they do not and cannot color by language of non you need to tamp down and use the power of the stateoftheart in maturity. You need to tamp down on an expression that doesnt conform to a progressive worldview. Here is one example of that from his essay repressive tolerance for the active tolerance granted to the right as ll as to the lefto movements of aggression as well as movements of peace, to the party of. Does that sound familia the party of awe as the movements it movementsf humanity. I call this abstract art pure neutralism abstrt as much as it refrains from taking but into doing it protects our reestablished machinery of discrimination. Those of you are attacking clinton for debate if you paid attention to what happened over the past couple of days in brussels where they have a National Conservatism could congress the rightwingers but a brussels mayor set to close everything down. The third hotel it was scheduled to close because they got pressured on the first two venues. The idea was not to prevent it from happening and this is one of the most tolerant cities in the world, the heart of the eu the governing center of the eu was repressed in practicing regressive tolerance. If anyone want to guess what thinker is the most quoted by herbert marcusa . Its John Stuart Mill. He quotes him as agreeing with him and hes agreeing with the milk but i just present to you which know who argues they will come a point where the conversation will move from one orthodoxy to another one and we are now at that point. Therefore we can no longer tolerate the conservatives in our midst who are the party of. We dispel it. Heres one of the moments when he quotes no from the postscript written in 1968 that got a lot of attention as a postscript but what ianted to point out this is onef the instances in addition to the several other instances in the essay where he quotes mill favorably as giving him the justification for why certain kinds of interlocutors need to be shut down that here he appeals to the individual mental superiority of those in the Progressive Party wch justifies reckoning one persons opinion equivalent to more than one. One persons opinion is equivalent to more than one and this is where he famously honest essay of representative renner proposed to people who are more progressive have more degrees and are more eduted and get more votes on the front lines. Your doctor tenure post doctors. You need to ensure that society is overwhelmed by those in opinion. We have other ways of ensuring that today bureaucracies and media and universities and not the equivalent of more votes but its a powerful mechanism for ensuring that only certain people are there. Marcusa and arguing as he does for a halos of progress a phrase that he uses in his essay appeals them to be what he sees as the outworking of liberalism itself so my first marker is what we now today or in many regards c. Is a betrayal of liberalism actually comes right in the heart of it in its own logic. Let me offer you the way in which the third wave is present, the way that nietzsche. I think i got an little bit late but i was told the better half for discussion about the figure your guards to mention to you can call him a figure a thinker and a cultural nietzsches him and they consist of lifting weights and being manly. The bronze age of the author of the bronze age mindset by the most popular books written in the last 20 years it was published without publisher. Published in 2015. Believed to be written by widely regarded as the mind behind the bronze age mindset in 2015. Darrow ph. D. Holder from Yale University where he wrote his dissertation. He argued that in a sense the straussian tradition of the healer points to the fact that nietzsche gets it right that nietzsche answers the question correctly that fukuyama was wrong in 1989 and now nietzsche is the right answer. I say this not because theres somebody that wrote it its popular but almost every elite College Campus i go to and i got a fair number to give talks, the conservative students at least some percentage of the high ambitious highly educated especially young men but not only young men on those campuses are huge fans of the bronze age mindset. Passed around in the underground he has 150,000 followers on x. His book which is a published version and expanded version of the dissertation was just published in 2023 the title of which the distinction from the dissertation plato and nietzsche and political thought the title of which is selected breeding in the birth of philosophy. Number one of all books published. It still ranks quite highly year after its publication. This is especially attractive to talented, many of them young men who are on campuses where they are experiencing the form of tyranny. They find in this author and in his writings a form of liberation. Accommodation of their excellence. Their distinctiveness. A call to be great. Not to become part of the herd or the mass. Not to embrace egalitarianism. Not to be a victim. Notice the theme. Each is a critic of christianity. That critics of the progressive version of this in some ways. Which is that one should seek to be equal in all things and seek to be a victim. Victims are celebrated. But whoever it might be recommending . Do not be a victim. Be great, be a victoire. Be someone who is distinctive and strong and powerful and does not conform but does not seek to be average. And now, and many of the most obvious respects this philosophy is deeply illiberal. There simply no question. Not only is it anti egalitarian and i dont mean an egalitarian in the sense of material forms. We can rank individuals against each other that we can also rank races against each other but we can rank and genders against each other. Certain people are better in some certain people are worse. Inherent dignity of human beings that he finds in christian tradition affect the christian tradition comes under withering scorn and critique by the mindset. Its racist and misogynist hierarchal. And yet one key feature is retained it is a celebration of liberation. Of being free. Being free of the shackles of Little People. Of being great. Getting oil from the mediocrity and deed there are elements that had been long recognized the forthcoming book notices steven pitts who teaches out of colorado has written a book nietzsche individuality and spiritual freedom that draws out the similarities and in particular both of them use the phrase about their concern of the dwarfing of man. The democratic age will lead to the dwarfing of man. States this concern and the voice of liberalism. That to be free means potentially to be great and unequal as we saw from the quote that i had out. To be more equal than the mass or the herd. And simply says liberated from old liberalism from its christian remnants and you get the true form of liberty. The liberty from Little People to be great. This strange but nevertheless striking weight and which aspects of the view in the theory and philosophy as a call for a or radical individualism. A promotion of greatness. To some extent, maybe a considerable extent aspects of classical liberalism. Capitalism, meritocracy, what are these theories about . This institution is one that still practices of meritocracy, i think. You want the best. You do not want to have a lottery to pick the mid shipment harvard tried that for about two years decided to go back to the sat. You want the best that our society as a liberal democracy emphasizes the best should in some ways attain and seek to attain distinctive and unequal positions part of classical liberalism is to endorse the inequality that emerges. That greatness emerge. Now torn free of these somewhat sentimental remnants of christianity. Its been promoted im sorry but this guy is the overt soul. He has about 1000. Very popular among the same group of people. He recently wrote a post, i did not put the full link in there i do not want to corrupt the youth. In which she made the case there is a kd of a liberalism. He sd these are the basic featur. This is from some stat, there you have the website. Reconciling liberalism. You can with the five of these, not going t read them out loud. This is his effort and response in particular to waukomis. Regard as a leveling and demeaning and praise of the victim of the second wave. This he knew it re narrowed third wave in our midst is being promoted as a way of resuscitating a certain kind of liberalism. Understanding and new, a new kind of liberalism. Here i want to claim rather than seeing this as the opposite of liberalism, as its contradiction it too arises from within the heart of liberalism. It takes one of its aspects one of the key aspects alliteration of the individual and greatness that can arise and amplifies that to the nth degree. In many ways to post a liberalisms these are not just theories. That seems to me what happens today you have in america a large number of people like some of the previous speakers on the rights. A large number the earlier speakers from yesterday who were on the left who want to revive and restore maybe he represent something of a defender love left liberalism. They went left liberalism to be renewed but politically noticed each of these older classical or progressive liberals have aligned themselves. Either entirely in the case of the left who are increasingly in the case of the right. In which some of the more Popular Figures in certain circles people like chris who snake might he was often retweeted. He is retweeted yesterday for his work done exposing the waukomis of npr. So theres a growing alliance on the right with the post liberalism and on the left with a very prominent woke post liberalism. Rather than seeing these as again betrayals of liberalism its important to see them as developments out of and from liberalism. Now im speaking here today i represent an alternative. What will it take to put in my post liberalism today . Im not going to do the at length by written a book. You can read the book, by the book. Seal the book. Its called steel this book. My basic assumption begins from the fact that i think its not just theoretically the case that liberalism as we were guarded in its ideal form is unstable. But that it will lead to a post liberalism and one way or another. Soap mind as a post liberalism that draws on that pretty liberal tradition the preet liberal tradition been bradley the Classical Tradition and the christian tradition im a roman catholic. I think the Classical Tradition from aristotle tracks through the catholic tradition. His here and present in the world through that tradition which is available to anyone who simply can think through these through reason and understanding. In other words, what i want to suggest today as we dont have a real choice about whether it were going to be post liberal. The choice week may have is what kind of post liberalism will we have . My accommodation i would want to call a kind of post post liberalism. Which of heels to a preliberalism. I found like a postmodernist post post liberalism. A post liberalism that draws on that tradition that long tradition of the west. And many ways it is betrayed by all of the various waves, pick one aspect of the Classical Tradition. The combination of the dignity of the individual. Its the commendation of the fact we are creatures that are social and political animals. In the telling of aristotle. The first wave and the second wave both articulate something true about our humanity. Recognizes there is a nobility to the human soul. It is something. But all of these detached pieces of the wholeness of the classical condition condition. It seems to me in that detachment we are on a glide path to a post liberal future it might preference time would be my recommendation would be a post liberalism that appeals to, draws and reinvents for post liberal age rejects these various pathologies that are inherent in the modern form for the extremes of both individualism and collectivism that we see it. Or the alternative of being beyond good and evil. Rather a tradition that re integrates the idea of liberty and authority. Of politics as well as restraining period of education undertaken and the pursuit and understanding both of wisdom and of virtue. Of tradition but tradition moderated by progress and progress moderated by tradition. In other words all of these i regarded something in my last book i call a mixed constitution integrating that has split apart in its various ways. So rather than tell you all about that let me stop there and see if you have any queries, thanks very much. [applause] we have time . Okay. Quick salute sir. I have a question mainly in regards to how you can actually enforce as you said the tolerance ensuring we dont see the culture tuition were talking about. My question is how can a Government Order a Society Crackdown on post liberalisms while also not fall into the trap of a revolution or counterrevolution . That is a big question. I would actually say weve already undergone a revolution for is not a revolution may beat with the level of violence of the french revolution of the family so im sorry at the wall street journal poll that appeared about a year ago that tracks the values of americans in particular five values the five values were patriotism that might be something you guys know about. Family, having children. Community, god, and money. And 25 years ago this was the order. All about 50 80 of americans said they value patriotism small number below that valued family and religion. And community and below 50 like 37 they valued money. Maybe they were lying. But they lived in a society at least you thought it was reputable that you lied about that. But, we can also say it cares a lot about country, god, family and Community Money is a lot less important. Its not on important but it may not be the priority of your values. Twentyfive years later the same last year it was completely reversed. All four of those that were about 50 were now below 50 . The loss of roughly 30 40 per question depending upon the question. And the only one i think came close to 50 with money which was highest. That is a revolution. That took place over 25 years. That was a slow moving revolution. A profound revolution that tracked some things that doctor levin was talking about in the last panel. Its not a matter of how do we avoid a revolution . Frankly i am in favor of a counter revolution. It may be where i differ with some of the previous panelist is i dont think its going to happen if we just lift government off of our backs. Here theres a bit of a debate within the conservative world i take a one site and my friends take another side a lot of the destruction we are seeing has come about because of an imposition of government and good things will happen from the bottom up. These are so deeply emptied. That in many ways i think we really need to think about those who care about the first four of the values and demote money at the central value of our society. Need to think about how we use the power of law and the power of institutions. Including government, local, state, national to begin to push back into recreate and strengthen that these that are central. We are seeing some of that among some universities being instituted through state laws. Attempting to not just have a conservative professor but create schools in which to ensure western civilization will be taught next generation. Those who care about these commitments see them as central to a Flourishing Society not just for the elite but for everyone that was discussed in the last panel. Really need to think about how we dont just rely on laissezfaire mechanisms but a counterrevolution has to take place through the use of actual political effort and law. Im not commending in my book does not commend violence in notes a call for a regime change. If you want to avoid violence, this might be the best path. Think if you are good questions. Thank you. Thank you for being here. My name is michael i am at the navy reserve. It seems her tongue but post a liberalism or liberal democracy liberal can mean a lot of things. It can mean the economic system. It can mean the current political left. It seems like its possible to move past those political and economic circumstances. But i guess my question is, when you look at some the foundational enlightenment thinkers that see human autonomy agency natural rights existing before any political or economic context, how can we move past that fundamental perspective on human nature regardless of what the economic or political circumstances are . That is an excellent question. First as anyone who works in these areas, any ism we are probably discussing is on wielding. Everyone probably has a bit of their own definition. One way i do think about it is that and it contracts the first two waves that travis talks about is that the first two waves in particular was a way of dividing of christianity if i could put it that way. So one geyser one understanding christianity in many ways it is about the inherent dignity of every human being. We are not merely herd creatures. Not even parts but to be absorbed into a collective. Of course is at the heart of christianity in many ways you can say this is one of the revolutions in the World History is christianity is a transformative way in which it brought people to understand every human being has inherent dignity. If you want to read about i can recommend no better book tom holland not the spiderman cohost of the great podcast the rest is history. He writes primarily about roman history. In writing about roman history he got curious, what happened in the world that we went from a civilization that regarded human life that we would regard a stink bug or something. Maybe we regard stink bugs better than human life was regarded. What happened . This is something not christian he found the evidence is a guess what happened to christianity . This is something true it is including classical liberalism. Its not all false. It is true we are human beings that are and should be regarded as having inherent dignity the theory of rights was one way we were taught. As a reaction against that was a correction and excessive correction to state we are not just individuals. We should understand ourselves as part of the whole. Indeed aspiring to become the hole. Two be members of something larger than ourselves not to beat fundamental individuals. But as parts of a collective. Parts of a whole and this is a hegel and of course this is karl marx who really wants us ultimately to no longer have individual egos. The aspiration is that that it his end of history we will in the sense create heaven on earth and cease to be thinking as individuals but we want our own property, we want our own families, jon lennon imagine thats the dream. Its not just a matter of overturning a false view of human nature. I think in a sense all of the modern waves all have a false view of Mother Nature that contains a partial truth. So my call to think anew about the lets put all these pieces back together again. In a way in which they are sufficiently cognizant of their own self limitation. We are not all just individuals but were not just all species to be used but we are social and political animals who do have inherent dignity and need to be accorded that inherent dignity. The politics of our day between the neo marxist left liberals and the right is all premised on the false understanding of human nature. I subscribed to none of the above. I invite you to join me in that. Thank you. Think if your response. Good morning doctor. Thank you so much for your address. Im a graduate student across the street at st. Johns college. I could tell from the boat site. [laughter] cooks out that the good thing. If this question is a better addressed feel free to do so. My question is post liberalism that you have commanded us to question preliberalism. It also seems possible perhaps by a certain logic to western preliberalism perhaps contained this that becomes liberalism. Is it possible to ascertain or understand how or whether the post a liberalism that you are commending, that draws on that may have already within itself a seed that leads onto a new kind of liberalism . Roxette is such a great question. I spent half of my waking days thinking about this. I do not have any brief answer to it. I will say the following. Your suggestion, im not sure if you are implicitly or explicitly appealing this, this is a suggestion at the end of stresses essay. At the end of stresses essay he says if i can jump back there, the tradition, the first of this tradition is the closed system of Classical Tradition. Therefore he says had elements of classical antiquity within it. Therefore in his view is probably the most defensible pay this as men who fled nazi germany was not particularly fond of communism. Who sees initially he flees to britain and then to the United States. Sees eight more civilized and humane society. That is simply undeniable. But that suggestion at the end of the book its much like strauss is writing its very ambiguous. As he sang historically was close . So that when the american founding happens its also very christian society. It is a society as the bishops the United States argued who were arguing against rome who was condemning a liberalism in america they said no, this concert dish was built better than the founders knew it had elements of the classical natural law tradition within it. So we cannot condemn it to a court. With that presence is the inheritance that the americans said and called just like saint johns these institutions that are meant to appeal back to a preliberal age. Its conduits of that tradition. Is that accidental . Or is that inherent . This is one of the bases my friends we argue about too some extent. I tend it to the view they were in many ways a wonderful inheritances that were dispersed by the logic of liberalism itself and cannot easily read made or recreated from within the horizon of liberalism. It is such a good question. Because how you answer that question will also then open up how you will think we can act in the world. Thank you, thank you so much. I am sorry apparently we can do one more. Sorry. We will chat. I would like to push you a bit on the interpretation bill you brought to the table. I have not read the strauss pieces you reference. If you are right about those pieces, i wonder about some of the parts you have not spoken about that have really convinced me too be a liberal. Some the things weve talked about so far in this conference virtues being practice in liberalism you have to be actively engaged in sight of your own mind. Considerations are representative of government. Talked about yes for. Yes you referenced. Why do we not want government by a benevolent dictator not because we get what we want are not what we want. But they would not be able to practice their own freedom become free people themselves and also i think he is wrong on wanting a plurality of votes for the more educated. But in a way it follows from how he was a great defender of the push of a more egalitarian Public Education in england at the time. It wasnt that will pull from the people who are already in oxford and cambridge now. When we have the lower classes educated then they will get an equal share of the vote. So maybe wanting to hear about why those were left out . Just for the purpose of these talks in the classroom and teach it try to get the full picture. Everything youve said. My comments were meant to underscore as a deep paradox within mills own argument but its a paradox played out on every College Campus today. His freedom for the sick question everyone he will ask why do have Academic Freedom . With Academic Freedom because that is how we will arrive at the truth. When you arrive at the truth what happens . Okay we have arrived at the truth human beings should not enslave other human beings. Do we need to hire faculty making arguments that no, we have the department of slavery studies in the department of womens studies it is not against slavery. Are we called to do that . To make sure youre having this internally . In other words he himself suggests the purpose of freedom is to arrive at conclusions. They say the science is settled thats what they are appealing to. You have an answer to the question. To be a lot of people out there have not got to that point yet. You have not reached that new better answer. They are still on the despotism of custom. England was relative a more progressive society. We dont the backward masses to derail when it came to non progress of society who he was quite clear. On page one of a book called on liberty he says when dealing with the savages and barbarians, despotism is required. In personal slavery may be needed for a period of time in order to get them to be industrious and to work. Is that part of the agreement . I suspect not. Its amazing how when peoples eyes and the loss over that passage. Not noticing it in this book called on liberty. And again i dont mean this the sum and total but it points to the instability. On that is what im pointing to the instability we ought not to be surprised out of a million regimes we get an oppressive regime. In the ironing today is it is the conservatives who are most appealing to jon stuart mill name names, robby george my friend and former colleague at Princeton University. The oppression of conservative voices is jon stewart mills. The irony for jon stuart mills is too rich to comment on. In many ways people like professor george associate minority on their campuses now. He represents the old orthodoxy. And now we have the new orthodoxy. Senate liberal marketplace of ideas. If. All right. Well, patrick, thank you for that. I think youve convinced many of us that things could be better in liberal societies, but i want you the take comfort in one thing. The Naval Academy is not a modern university. We or west point, for that matter, or the air force academy or st. Johns. We encourage debate, and we, because of that, invite you back anytime you want to come and speak again. Thank you. Next week, all right. [applause] so im sure youre hungry. All midshipmen here are welcome to eat upstairs, and we will start again at 45 with dr. Fukuyama. The Conference Also hosted a discussion on the future role of liberalism. In democracy with remarks from Francis Fukuyama of stanford if, university with. Its just about an hour. [inaudible