Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On The Closing Of The Liberal Mind 20160514

Underlying theory would then kind of, i dont know, guide the development of treatment of disorders today. I guess. Or how what direction you see that changing research. I think that dsm has been very helpful, i mean, in categorizing certain conditions. I mean, and giving people some sense of, you know, based on which categories what treatments could apply. What its failed at is the underlying ideology. And i think most people understand, right, that thats i mean, theres value in it, but really asking why, whats going on, right . I think as the more we learn, right, the more we will come to understand that its, you know, not specific neurotransmission yes, they can play a role, i mean, in this disorder or that disorder. But to really understand how neural circuits really become sensitized, how those neural circuits, those grooves get laid down, i think thats whats key. You know, the reality is the reason why this has been so hard, i mean, because once those neural circuits get strengthened, how long do they last . Do they respond, right . So they can last a lifetime, right . But the good news is we can lay down new neural circuits. And i think, i mean, i think that increasingly, you know, those who provide care understand that the goal is to try to lay down those new neural circuits. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. [applause] so we do have dr. Kesslers book at our cash register. He will be staying for just a short while to either sign a copy or if you have a question for him, youre welcome to come on up. Thank you so much for coming tonight. [applause] [inaudible conversations] youre watching booktv on cspan2 with top nonbe Fiction Books and nonFiction Books and authors every weekend. Booktv, its television for serious readers. [applause] thanks, folks. Thanks for being here. This is really an exciting discussion that kims going to lead today, and he and i started talking about this, i guess, a couple of years ago. Its something ive been very interested in for a long time, just the growing intolerance and intimidation coming from the left. Actually, the very first book i wrote was called why we whisper, and the subtitle was losing our right to say its whereon. And it was all about the growing intimidation of anyone who wanted to take a position that was based on any kind of traditional values, any judeochristian morality and how the left carries out that intimidation in a way that makes everyone whisper. And the title of that book came from my experience of saying something in my Senate Campaign where i was just pummeled in the media all over the place. There was no public support for me. But everywhere i went people would come up after the meeting and get real close and say keep fighting, were with you. But it was always a whisper, because people were so intimidated. Kim holmes has done a much more scholarly job of digging into the history of liberalism and to the point of where we call it illiberalism today. And its so important, kim, i actually have some prepared remarks that id just like to read to give you a more scholarly introduction here. Because this book and i told kim after i read it, i was surprised he seemed so normal. [laughter] because really deep analysis of where we are, more than most people will be willing to listen to but very proto found at a time profound at a time, a Perfect Timing for this book to come out given what were seeing happening around the country. Every day we see stories about disruption to learning on College Campuses due to heated protests over free speech and racial issues. The dismissal of the concerns of people of faith in running their schools or businesses, the denouncements of professors, officials and scientists for uns fashionable opinions unfashionable opinions in a disturbing trend to attempt to destroy the careers or public profiles of individuals for their ideas. These are just a few examples. I think youll agree with me that today the variations are almost endless. You may have experienced some of these in your own work. The overarching theme here is the impulse to not just disagree, but to dismiss, demean, degrade and each try to and even try to use the law to silence those with whom you disagree. How did American Society and Public Discourse reach such a level of incivility and intolerance . Leaving many afraid to exercise their constitutional right to express their own opinions on the important matters facing this country. Today we will hear about from kim holmes who will introduce to you his new book, the closing of the liberal mind how group think and intolerance define the left. This did not happen overnight. As you will hear from dr. Holmes, this is the result of a long, philosophical road that started prior to the american founding, a road that took two different directions; one european and one distinctly american. While this may seem academic, it is quite important to understand the situation we find ourselves in today and how to think about the terms liberal and liberalism. Dr. Holmes will talk about how american liberalism, which for centuries fought for individual liberties such as free speech and freedom of conscience, it has become its op opposite; cloe minded and intolerant of different points of view. A development that is transforming a oncevibrant liberal tradition boo an illiberal force for denying peoples rights and freedoms. The closing of the liberal mind is threatening Constitutional Rights that at one time had been among americas greatest causes. It is upending the very order that once was the bastion of American Freedom and equality which in the end is not only a threat to the country, but to the great traditions of liberalism itself. But the prognosis is not all bad. Theres a way forward, and dr. Holmes will talk about that too. Thank you all for joining us and, please, give a warm welcome to one of heritages top scholars and a great friend of ours. Thank you. [applause] thank you, jim. My god, that was a better summary than i think im going to be able to do. [laughter] that was perfect. There are a lot of people to thank for me being able to write this book. I know its always a dangerous thing to start mentioning names and the like, but surely, jim, youre at the top of the list because i remember two years ago when i went to see you in your office, and i said i have this idea about writing the history of liberalism and why its become the way it is. And i remember i used a term in that meeting. I said, you know, its becoming illiberal, and you looked at me like, uhoh, hes going to go off in an academic direction. [laughter] and i did do that. But i benefited greatly not only from your support, but also from the discussions that weve had. And, i mean, we even i think the subtitle was entirely yours. So i greatly benefit from your support and your friendship, and i greatly appreciate it. Also phil is here, my old boss. I wouldnt even be in this position and be able to write these books if it werent for the faith and confidence that phil had in me, so its great to see you here, phil. Well, yes, we do have a problem. If you look up the definition of the word liberal in the dictionary, you will find it means many different things. The word broadminded comes up. The word open minded comes up. A liberal is supposed to be somebody, according to the definition, that is tolerant of different points of view. The idea being that, well, you may disagree with me, but you have every right to your opinion. Above all, no one has the right to deny you or me our freedoms of expression and our freedom of conscience. In the marketplace of ideas, competition must be kept kept open. Theres no settled science. The endsover history are openended. Were not sure where were going. Checks and balances must be maintained in the government to insure that no one particular, one single party or even one partisan point of view ever prevails purchase. The forever. The rule of law is sacrosanct, and the same rules should apply to everybody. That is sort of the general idea of what a liberalminded person should be. Well, by those standards today, liberals have a problem, selfdescribed liberals have a problem. Speech codes and safe spaces are used on campuses to stifle dissent and to shut down debate. Progressive attorneys general are issuing subpoenas against socalled Climate Change deniers. Some activists actually want to try them as war criminals. The irs has targeted the president s political opponents while the president himself has abused his executive authority. Religious people who question samesex marriages are called bigoted and worse. Some are even threatened with boycotts, fines and even imprisonment. Universities where progressivism Reigns Supreme are places of stifling intellectual conformity. And all across america whether its in our neighborhoods, in our schools or in our local governments, theres a zero tolerance of anything that may offend or disturb whatever the orthodoxy happens to be in that particular institution at that particular time. Now, its plain to see that aggressive liberals today have become the opposite of the liberalminded person as ive described them here. Theyve become intolerant, closeminded even, yes, jim, illiberal which is the opposite of the liberalminded person. Closeminded, intolerant, trying to stifle dissent. And too often they use public shaming rituals particularly in the universities and even coercion increasingly through the law to stifle dissent and to shut down debate. I wrote this book because i wanted to tell the story of how this happened, and its a long story. Its actually an historical story. Its not just what happened in the last eight years. Its been going on for a very long time. Unfortunately, also there are a lot of misunderstandings of myth, i think, that i wanted to tackle. And i must say at the outset it will not do if you are a conservative to simply argue that well, you know, progressives have always been this way. This is a response ive gotten on twitter as ive been trying to promote book. A lot of people will come back, well, whats new under the sun . They have always been intolerant. I just dont think progressives, even though theyve held long, strong strongheld views, but i think that their war against dissent and their desire to control have never been as intense as they are today. So i think there is something pulsely different and new. Fundamentally different and new. Liberals say, are you kidding me . Youre calling us intolerant . When you have so many bigots in your midst as conservatives . Look, you can find close mindedness in any ideology. But today what liberals call intolerant and bigoted by conservatives is often just a legitimate difference of opinion. Apparently, times change and standards shift. Just a few short years ago, for example, barack obama and Hillary Clinton held views on marriage that today progressives regularly condemn as bigoted. Now, should we call obama and clinton bigots too . I dont think so. This is not just hypocrisy. I think it is a betrayal. Progressive liberalism is at war and professes to believe in. Not only tolerance in the open mind but increasingly even freedom and democracy. Liberals are becoming their own worst enemies. Theyre becoming a force undermining what remains of the once great liberal tradition in america. In the closing of the liberal mind i can see how this happens. The first point is the one that somewhat surprised me when i started the research. Todays progressive liberalism is not really your parents liberalism at all. It is far more radical and different. It is looking at the old liberal traditions of fdr and jfk such as freedom of speech, political pluralism and particularly respect for western values. Its not even the liberal of president bill clinton when he was in office who if you recall at the time was a moderate new democrat. You re call he disavowed the militant left with his socalled sister and soldier moment. But only a couple of weeks ago he was forced to apologize to a group of black lives matter protesters who were shooting him down. The difference between the old bill clinton of the new bill clinton shows you just how much progressivism has changed. Todays progressivism, what i call in the book the post modern left is a child of a new left in the 19 sixties. From the new left it got its drive to revolutionize culture and society. Also society. Also got its unique talents for finding ever new issues such as sexual politics to advance the call and cause of egalitarianism. Its a particular genius and i have to call it that, at at least in terms of being politically effective was it to infuse the new cultural evolution and identity politics with the new ideas of the postmodernism and multiculturalism. That is, the beliefs that morality is completely irrelevant. Truth is totally subjective, all cultures except for the western course is inferior is completely equal. Freedom and reality are functions nothing more than social constructs, and absolute freedom of perfect equality are achievable by the state and by the enforcement of the law. Providing the right people are in charge and enough enforcement is applied to the problem. So why do i say genius . Because these intellectual elements, values are really a postmodernism as i have described them, once they infuse with the old radical dream a perfect equality they become a very powerful tool in deconstructing, that is dismantling the old order, the old the old culture and the old values. The postmodern left did not appear to be about politics at all. It appeared to be mainly about personal freedom. The never ending dream of achieving perfect happiness and completes personal satisfaction. It looked to be all about expanding horizons of freedom but in practice we have seen and i started very enough into opposing speech codes on campuses and finding pastors to do samesex weddings. So make no makes mistake. Postmodern ideas may have appeared to be all about language, art, the Human Experience, any university and you talk to these professors, thats what theyre mainly interested inches but in the hands of academics and activists and most important politicians and journalists, they became intellectual weapons to overturn the old cultural order. What is this main . Think about it. What is this mean . Think about it. If all morality is relative than who needs it. If truth is subject of the men and women are completely free to defined who and what they are, including the right of a man to claim that is he is really a woman in the accord law. Of all white people are by definition guilty of White Privilege than who needs to bother with what an individual white person actually thinks, believes, or even does. If freedom of speech is a mere fiction, mere social construct, then it can be controlled. It can be eliminated for the purpose of achieving a political agenda. The postmodern view of the world that ive been describing here is baffling. It is utter lack of interest in history and in reality, it was a key gateway for the radicalization of progressivism in the last 25 or 30 years. It open the way the way for a new kind of radical individualism and i have to call it that. One way that the only view that counts is the one that a Single Person believes or claims. That view is after all, the very essence of identity politics. It also redefined what the left meant by inequality. It is true, we still have Bernie Sanders is an oldfashioned note socialist and so we still do have socialism defined economically. But but in the kind of cultural radical but im talking about here it wasnt just economic, it was focused on culture and social change. Particularly the place that individuals had in certain social groups. Particular those based on race, gender and social preferences. In this world you gained your individual rights not by what you shared in common wi all humanity, as it had been understood by natural law rather you got that by virtue of you got there by virtue of your membership in the group. If you belong to or a persecuted minority, u. S. And individual shared in the persecution of the entire group. It did not matter if you had as an individual been persecuted or not. What really mattered was the historic and social position of the group in which you will remember. From that comes the basis of identity politics and the new kind of codes that are being enforced across america. This was a momentous change. It fundamentally change the way we view civil rights, it also turn to cause equal inequality into a weapon that could be used against freedom of speech which is what jim was talking about. Certain critical views of the groups that cannot be called hate speech and you can develop elaborate illegal concepts to go around this idea. If it was hate speech it can therefore be legally curtailed. Even silenced if necessary. Any expression of offending could be silence and it was all done in the name of the equality. This worldview this postmodern worldview that i describe may sound a bit academic. It is is true that i had to go back in and read some of the Academic Studies and really where the ideas originated in the last 35 years years about critical theories and the like. I was astonished by how badly written they were in how much they relied on an insular medically sealed secular reasoning where nothing was allowed to interfere with the circle starting one place and ending begging the question all along. But it is not just academic, its actually very real stuff of modern politics and culture. It is spread and enforced by prevailing world view of groupthink. And that is professed by professors, teachers, lawyers, government officials, entertainers, well not only think alike and who cannot possibly imagine a worldview outside of their own. Its not a conspiracy, its its frankly a consensus. They dont have to sit in dark rooms thinking talked experiences. They just have to win could not an agreement if theyre all a part of the same class and they also share the same education. They operate under the world of cozy yet symbiotic relationship, their wealthy, connected and come to the best schools. All watch the same shows, movies , they live in the same neighborhoods, they intermarry, interact with interact with one another, theyre the most influential today people in american politics and culture. Many of them, particularly professors and researchers are funded directly or indirectly by the federal government. So this process of ill liberalization that i describe is definitely accelerated under president obama. It has many different aspects, many of them will be familiar to you, particularly here at heritage, as you use executive authority. Laws were essentially written either by not enforcing them or by reinterpreting them to mean something different. From what they had been originally intended. There is been a heavyhanded use of the Justice Department to investigate local jurisdiction, officials and police departments, but only when they serve the president s agenda. All in all, agenda. All in all, it is a record of abusing power to get ones way. Science is settled, history is over, the whole system must be transformed which in reality means altering it for good. So that the president s opponents, mainly conservatives will have no means in the future to undo what he has achieved. All of this means is that on the main battlefront of intolerance in america has shifted. It used to be that progressives, because they believe they were the minorities were all in favor of free speech and open discourse because they thought be in a minority serve their purpose as dissenters if you will to keep things open. However, now, now that they are increasingly in charge they are trying to close the doors behind them. As a result, conservatives are finding themselves to be in the minority against a very powerful, new powerful, new and even wealthy new majority. Particularly in an industry, business, the entertainment the entertainment industry, certainly the media, and even frank italy in churches. Across the various fronts of the culture wars that we see them every day, progressives are oppressing their advantage and they do so because they think they are winning. That is why they have become ever bolder and making heavier demands. As a result, conservatives feel like theyre on the defensive. They feel like they are the ones who know have to be worried about their rights because as a minority they are seen the law in certain areas of their beliefs being used to suppress their freedom of conscious, their freedom of speech. Which brings me to the trump phenomenon. Understanding has become a near obsession, go into this area with great trepidation. Everybody has a theory of what caused all of this. All i can say is that what you see in Donald Trumps supporters is a backlash against all of the things that im describing here. It is a fight higher with fire mentality. A kind of if you cant beat them with old constitution with conservativism, with its interest in checks and balances, decorah, decorah and all of these things then we will fight, we are free to fight liberals with their own tactics. There is no way i think to explain anger and frustration of the gop electorate. In this election election cycle without acknowledging two facts. One is that they are, as i suggest to your account or reaction to the ill liberalism of the left and that they are a direct consequences of obamas success in changing the system and changing the rules which conservatives believe is now the permanently rigged against them. So president obama make him play about trump, but they are in this respect and natural consequences of the polarization that the president has helped create. Now my last point and please forgive me here, i will do a little bit of an academic dance but it is about the history of the problem, the long history of the problem and of ideas which i think frankly are important, i know we live in washington and we think politics is all about money, power, and interest in, course it is but when you take the long haul of history, parties and people have to believe in something, they have to have some ideas and so therefore the idea particularly to the intellectuals and universities and elsewhere who form all of these theories that im talking about here, the ideas do matter to try to understand where theyre coming from and where they are going. I just think you have to look at the actual history of postmodern ideas to understand not only their appeal, but frankly why they have been so successful. I describe this at length in the book. It can be boiled down to two points. One is that the ideas of the left today, whatever you want to call them revolutionary left, progressivism, in some ways nothing has changed. It is the old dream of perfect and absolute inequality. His story and calls radical gala terry is inches in that sense its nothing new under the sun its been around since the french revolution and before. But as i mentioned are ready the postmodern left has added a new twist to it. Today, to be a radical egalitarian you must also be a radical individualist. This is new, after all transgenders in an samesex marriage are not argued by people supposedly what is best for society. Its not really argued as a question of freedom so much, most in their mind its about equality. But matters here theyre really arguing that what really matters is their supposedly advocating is best for them as individuals. And they have a right to the happiness, the dignity and whatever else they claim, that is the emotional powerful argument that is being used by this movement. That is that the very essence of the identity claim. For them, and people involved in this the personal is social. The more importantly its political. That is a new, interesting twist on this long history of desire quality. The second point in the postmodern left is an intellectual historical hybrid of the far left but also the far right. From the left you get the quest as i mentioned for perfect equality. From the right, and i dont mean the american right, i mean the european right and most are partly the philosophical counter reaction to the indictment and the french revolution that happened in europe, you get this radical subjectivism in this tribal mentalities that originated with the romantics and the german ild list and it worked its way through the history of germany and Central America and ideas of cultural nationalism in the group and identity of the group is really where you found true authenticity, true meaning of true freedom. In europe that is rightwing idea. Not here, but it migrated into the left into postmodernism, these philosophers in france and people whose followers came to america mostly in the 19 seventies, particularly at Yale University and develop the foundation of all the critical theories that today is the defining concept of the left. Where did these ideas of postmodernism come from . Were the forefathers for these people . They were schopenhauer, nisha these guys and in 19th century europe were radical individuals. They believe in heroic individual they believed in pure subjectivity and why theres exercise of a willing history. But they also were the ones who influence these postmodern philosophers that i just described. Look at the intellectual history and it is a very interesting idea. The history of idea of how something migrated from that counter enlightenment into what it is today a very expression of the enlightenment. Its very interesting to me. Why is it important to know its not just a historical point. I find it fascinating even though others dont. I tried it on my wife the other day she said who cares. [laughter] but heres why put it in the book. Because the the postmodern life is a hybrid. As a hybrid it is philosophically very slippery and flexible. Its not easy to pin down, its its very adaptable and it is managed to become, even though when i talk at straggly about ideas, in the the reality of everyday life, society and politics where the ideas are not talked about directly the way im talking about them, it has become part of a Popular Culture in the sense of identity politics, and the sense of i am who im, who i am, i care about only what my rights are, there are no absolute truth so therefore i get to define with the truth is and if i have to get into power by the way whether its a university with administration, or somewhere else and i can start enforcing this conformity with regulation because after all if you oppose me, youre not only not advocating quality year downright evil. So this ideology is flex flexible, light, light, it has no use for rigorous logic. Its not interested in a big system of idea like marxism is, its a opposite of that. In in the end, truth, reality, freedom anything you come up with our only divine, they are defined only by those who are in charge. Because if you have no natural law, if you dont have any outside reference, then everything is truly relevance. If you happen to get and charge you can enforce a conformity because there is no external way to challenge you because the culture doesnt recognize anything outside in terms of reference of the philosophy that is now the orthodox. So now, let let me conclude by making an appeal. This is where i think jim has said to me now dont feel darkness. You have to have some hope here. So let me conclude by making an appeal. The first is that progressives in my opinion have not always been multi cultural radicals. If you look at herbert croley, youll never find him denouncing the family. You will find him denouncing restaurant civilization. He was an american nationalist actually. The esoteric ideologies of the identity politics wouldve fdr and jfk and even john dewey who by the terms of his day with a big radical, progressives may think theyre merely updating progressivism, but i dont think they are, i are, i think they are very often into a new direction and frankly the direction that they are veering into i call a cultural liberalism it can only survive by doubling down on authoritarian control by trying to eliminate opposing points of view. If you let in the light of another standard or another protective or another way of looking at the world, their worldview does not stand up very well to scrutiny and criticism. So that is why the university is very often intent on having only one point of view. Oddly enough, all of their critical theories have ended up producing just one point of view that is now the orthodoxy. Now look, im a conservative. I happen to believe that traditional progressivism has been misguided. This does not mean that i believe that america does not benefit from a movement that continually pushes for change and inclusion. America has always had a venerable tradition. Frankly, i think it still needs a liberal tradition. It needs one that combines social progress and respect for individual rights and freedom. It does not need one too that denies those rights and stifles freedom all in the name of a new concept of progress. At the end of the day, whether you are a liberal or whether you are conservative, you should want to system that is pluralistic and open. No one site should ever completely prevail over the other. Yet today, with our settled science, the statements about history be an engine, progress an engine, progress defined as only one way and also the bullying tactics that i have described here today, progressive liberals liberals are acting as if it is all over. They have one and all that is left is a mopping up operation. All i can say to liberals and believe it or not i have liberal friends is that be very careful of what you wish for. Hubris is a terrible masters, it is not only threatening my liberties, your liberties, all of our liberties, i think frankly and i say this to my liberal friends, it is ruining your movements and you should be as concerned about it even more than i am. Thank you very much. [applause]. We have time for questions. We have microphones if you would be so kind to identify yourself and your affiliation if it is appropriate. I will start however. I think radical individuals is a very pleasant term. I tend to think of the founders and the people who discover the west as radical individuals. I think radical individuals today are just basically anarchist. When did we hit the tipping points of anarchy . Well thats an interesting point. I have a segment in the book about the history of libertarianism. I go back to the 19th century and there was a Strong Influence of anarchism in the 19th century and the early founders of libertarianism. Theres also the classic liberal views like that that fused with it. But when i say radical individualist, i dont really have in mind a libertarian notion of it. I have in mind the kind of extreme selfishness, the heroic selfishness that you saw in these philosophers and peoples lake nietzsche like that that migrated through the culture to the point where you can a claim that whatever is good for you and nobody can find a way to argue with that. Its hard for them. They dont have have any kind of outside reference. I can tell you that is not the way the founders looked at individual rights. They they believed in the importance of virtue. That you had to control and contain yourself, you had to be respectful of other peoples rights. It wasnt an extreme radical view, all about me. Some people call that narcissism, i dont call it that. I just think that theres something wrong with trying to pretend that your cause of individual satisfaction is really all about the kind of cultural inequality that they are arguing about. I just put it out, because i just dont think its a commonly understood what were dealing with. Question. Well start to down here in front. Sorry, i have a post blocking me. Hello. Congratulations on the book. A great discourse this morning. I look for to reading your book. You remind me you remind me of something i never quite understood that as a philosopher that said without god there is no freedom. Because what all you describe today, the absence of a system of belief, religious is totally missing. That gaping hole leaves room for the radical individual that youre talking about. If you go back to the old radical left, even marxism and socialism, even even the socialism in america in the 1950s, they were in and out believers of natural law is understood in a trait century but they did have an idea that there was such a thing as universal justice. And they would be able to systematic logic and be able to describe what it was. The thing about postmodern left is that since they believe that there is no one universal source of justice that your justice is just as good as mine, as good as his, and since there is no center you can basically press the agenda into whatever it is and call it inequality. This is not only a new thing, it was actually very effective as a political movement. Everybody can identify with their own personal freedom, cant they . Therefore therefore the freedom of a person who is gay, and to have a samesex marriage is something i can identify with because i want my own personal freedom. In some ways, its the original liberal idea of all the freedom individuals taken to extreme. That to me is not only interesting but it also explains as i said in my remarks, why the the left is so politically and intellectually slippery. Frankly conservatives very often find themselves, the reason why they fall into the trap of using the terminology that is used against them in discrimination and the like, is it because i think they lack an understanding of where theyre coming from. So to have a confidence come back and say no its not really about discrimination, its about your rights visitors my rights. And lets find a way, true liberal way to make sure that my rights are not being destroyed by your rights. After all, we can get into the area of the bathroom wars down in north carolina. You would think that women and children would have a right to privacy. But thats not really the question. So why is that . Why are their rights not being respected . Because the narrative is not about them. Its about the ones for making the original claim. [inaudible] i have a question, and radical individualism to what extent that theres an awareness on the part that radical individualism trend [inaudible question] is it really coercion and radical conformity, this whole thing is temporary, dont even think marriage is going to be recognized. In in any of that, do you think theres an awareness that leads to that and thats the intention . Its a tricky business to figure out what theyre aware of and what they say and the analysis they use it so selfcontained in their own terms and logic. That when someone like me are you starts describing different words to what theyre saying its like a big gap occurs. I think youre right that the end result that you mentioned, regardless of the interest and radical individuals is conformity. The real the real question is why is that. I think the answer is as i described in my presentation is because its not just about radical individuals, its about equality. At the end of the day that matters more than anything else. Thats a trump card. Thats what makes him true leftists is that. Im just saying, that theyre looking around the culture and theyre looking at the history of ideas and their finding some of these new ways of looking at the individual, a useful way of fighting the old battle. Of equality. Are they sincere about it . I dont know. The thing is, if you look at the way for example gay rights are advocated, they are, i looked at a very closely. The argument is not made on the basis of freedom which is what you would expect. That would be the old argument, let me be free to do what i want. Thats not thats not the argument. The argument is not made on for this is the best thing for society which would then an old socialist are to me. Theyre saying the best thing for me. That is an old liberal argument, but it could also be as i said pretty much the way these postmodernist philosophers and critical theory is looked at what the Human Experience was most important. It was to them, the authenticity of the individual. So they managed to combine that with the agenda of multiculturalism. Its a brilliant connection. It works very well. The fact that theyre playing on different intellectual field is very confusing. At one time or another you dont know which one youre arguing. They can switch over to a civil rights argument on one hand and then youre arguing in the 1960 civil rights on the other. Youre buying into the assumptions that they are of the same thing and we theyre not. You have to try to understand whether or not the same thing and thats a challenge. Will do a question in front well go back. How you describe the values you have so much diversity if you included everybody. You go to capitol hill and the Republican National convention, and what you are seeing is that 100 but the media doesnt describe that. The reality is that some hold republicans have been very narrowminded, very inclusive and they just want to push everybody out. She told me that donald trump just hijacked republican party. Will my book is not about politics. It is not about the gop, its not about donald trump. Its not even about the conservative movement as a political movement. The book is about ideas of what is happening with liberalism. You can make any argument you want, i suppose if you are liberal sitting there youll say were only way you are because the way you are and get off into that, im trying to rise above that and trying to take things seriously for what they say, claim, amply. Maybe we can write that book that youre talking about another day. But even if what youre saying is true, not nothing that it is, it doesnt negate what it negate what i am saying to be true. There is something fundamentally changed with progressive liberals in the last few decades , im trying to make the appeal that if they continue down this path than the kind of reactions that they are seen on the right is going to be the same if not worse. So, do we as americans want to go down that path . Or do we want to start taking each other more seriously . And taking the idea seriously. I just think its important and to realize what is happening to america liberalism. I think we know students of modern history that revolution, i would rather not wait that long. I like like to know if you can get some prescription of how we fight the battle of ideas. We are parents, employers, we participate in a social contract that others no longer recognize. Had we fight back . At my agency and the thinking is your asking the question, my god i only have have 30 more years to do this. It would take that long. The short answer is take ideas seriously, educate yourself, and take a culture a culture seriously and start taking what happens in the universe seriously. We conservatives understandably so have a tendency to think that we can focus on politics and that somehow that would be our celebration. Im not suggesting that we cant and dont do that. On the other hand, what im what im talking about here is how values and concepts in politics and the culture have changed very slowly but traumatically of the last 40 or 50 years and they happen mainly in the realm of culture and ideas. Particularly in the universities. For you have a stifling intellectual conformity. Many conservatives its like going into hostile territory. Yet, that is where ideas come from. The students do not come up with these crazy ideas about identity politics, this is what theyre taught in the classrooms. Frankly the journalist on either, only their comments what they learned at columbia and elsewhere. So i think we have to reengage on ideas and start taking ideas, intellectual ideas even and culture more seriously. Theres a pragmatic aspect of that, what you do with hollywood, what you do with churches and the like, get all that but in some ways all that is downstream. If you cannot get it at the beginning and influence the process at the very beginning and you go to the very end of it its going to be like trying to put your finger in the dike. So if you lose the current culture which i think conservatives have, thats going to be a problem. By the way very quickly, not suggesting here, what does that mean to go back to the 1950s or, i dont mean that permitted. Im talking about taking the ideas of the founding, the idea that there was something called individual rights, there was a sense of universal justice, it was understood by natural law before or by religion, and the constitution was formed in order to protect those rights. Whether youre liberal or conservative. Thats an idea that every american should rally around. That is not what is taught in american universities. Not at all. Thank you, terry miller with the heritage foundation, congratulations on a fantastic book. It seems to me one of the points of vulnerability for the other side or for the ill liberal liberals is might be the place for the radical individualism intersects within the group think. I wonder if you can elaborate a little bit on how that happened. Ive been asked, ive been doing radio interviews and i get what we do next, and how do we argue this point. A slave to answers. One theyre overreaching. Theyre going to far, these, these excesses are just offensive to most americans. Im talking about universities, using subpoenas by attorney generals to go after Climate Change, these are excesses if you will. This is an embarrassment. Perhaps onto the president but it is an embarrassment to most americans. So this is why wrote the book, i want to say, this is where we should engage, we should be having the fight in the American Public domain on this issue. That is not just that theyre doing with the opposite of what youre claiming to be, which is a radical individualist and thats where they justify themselves, but their ended up in a terrible conformity, thats a contradiction you engage in any move in the middle of a and is not only hypocritical but its a betrayal. In any honesttogoodness progressive liberal who is of least test some respect for history would have a hard time viewing that particular argument. So its very important that we do not get into the postmodern left and start arguing over discrimination and narratives in all the stuff that they do, to use their terminology, their points of references and we will lose. We need to step back, reassert our own values, our own understanding of what universal justice is, whats right and wrong, what individual rights are and be very confident about it. I think we can win that debate in the long run. I think there could very well be , frankly there is already a backlash. I talked about that. Theres. Theres a backlash against is already happening on the right. Whether or not its being channeled in the right political direction, thats a different story. But i think this is where it is coming from. The question is is it too late for liberals themselves to realize whats happening with their own movement, thats a question a question i have. Thank you [applause]. I have noted we do have copies of the book available in the foyer. Youll be glad to speak with you further appear in as a bonus, we will let you have a copy of his previous book, rebound while you are visiting with us today. Thank you for your kind attention, we look for to seeing you at heritage again in the future. [applause]. [inaudible] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] you are watching the tv. Television for serious readers. The program you see here on my netbook tv. Org. His routine in terms of showing the arbitrariness of being able to regulate what is called indecent speech it could not be regulated, its not obscene. So. So it was a new category speech that is been created. Indecent speech which he was proud of. Yes, i was going to ask about that how did he feel about the fact that his routine, technically in some ways you could say it proved his point, but in another way the freespeech side lost. Yes they did. How did your father feel about that decision. He always called it an accident of history. He never felt he didnt play the elven. Wba i and new york played the album. It was the middle of the afternoon. When afternoon. When my dad describes the moment is a professional moralist was in a car with his 14yearold son when they play the seven dirty words, like this 14yearold son had never heard these words and of course my dads argument was there are two buttons on her radio, the off switch, if you dont like this speech, choose something different. But this gentleman decided to go and complain to the fcc and it went to the supreme court. My dads biggest on this case was that all nine justices had to listen. [laughter] to the album to the plea piece that was play, 77 dirty words and that the actual routine is in the books of the supreme court. Right now you can go to your local law library and look up the case in his routine is typed out for a b want to see, forever. He took great pride in that. Heels always do feel it was an accident of history. So it 25i went back to ucla to get my bachelors and became a communications major. One of the classes we took was a First Amendment class which was my favorite class, i loved it. Almost i loved it. Almost became a First Amendment lawyer, very close. Then i thought, law school, oh. The my professor, im in a classroom of about 100 or hundred about 100 or hundred 50, maybe bigger than this, and my professor, the first day class was talking about the class and how he loved teaching and is name is jeff and he ran a school at usc, he knew clinton, big First Amendment guy. He said my favorite thing about teaching this class that will study the pacific versus fcc case and ill get to do George Carlin seven dirty words for you. This has become a regular regular occurrence in my life where i am somewhere innocently minding my own business and my father in truths on my life. It was really one of those moments where i saw, so this was in 90, i really saw that my dad really have this incredible impact on the culture at large in the fun part was getting to go up to professor afterward and say hi, i just want to let you know and of course the professor says to me, oh, could your dad calm . Would your dad, and do the seven dirty words for us. So i went to my dad and i said some taken this class and class and i had to ask when hoping to remember studying the Pacifica Claes case and the professor would like you to come. My dad was so cute and interesting, his reaction to that was oh, no, cannot do cannot do that, i dont know anything about the case. I mean its just an accident of history that it was me, and his going on and on about and i just look at him and like dad, i dont think theyre asking you to know the law. I think they want you to be George Carlin and say the seven dirty words. He was so darling about it. So that really shows my fathers humility. My father had a great place about him. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Tonight is going to be like a double book event. It is not going to be just also the revolutionary life. His birthday was just like almost a week ago. So this guy jerrell warns a brilliant scholar, brilliant