Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On The Fractured Republic 20160709

Television for serious readers. Edit down we kickoff the weekend with yuval levin, the authors most recent book is the the fractured republic renewing americas social contract in the age of idividualism. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] hello everyone. Thank you for joining us today for this lunch. I have never had the microphone too low for me. My name is oren cass, a senior fellow here at the Manhattan Institute and our speaker today is trying to and founder and editor of National Affairs magazine. Its a real privilege for me to introduce yuval levin today. Is now standing mentor and role model to younger scholars such as myself and really all you need to know about yuval levin is that he has the wisdom not to use twitter. I should probably say more about him that he does not tweet, so less impressive, but more relevant today, i would say better than anyone in america he is at the funny what conservatism means and showing its relevance to modern society and applying its principles to the challenges of today and now he has written a book doing just that, the fractured republic renewing americas social contract in the age of idividualism. This book is a next regnery, schmidt just as a diagnosis of our societies maladies. Probably not since the dream and the nightmare that we had such a thoughtful and thorough account of the dramatic changes in society, causes of those changes in the ultimate consequences of them. But, even more notably he did not stop there and for me, the most important and may be overlooked message of the book is the importance of presenting a positive vision for americas future and it actually brought me back to my four careers and Management Consultant and if you will forgive me a moment of consultant speak i would like to quote someone a something written by my former college. People get excited by imagining themselves on the beach or ski slopes, not by reading the travel itinerary. Change requires leaders who can inspire people and provide them with internal compass to align their subsequent behaviors, decisions and actions. This vision often works more through metaphors and stories in fact end of the sizes the defamation as well as the journey. Successful change begins by asking, what is our beach. So, maybe that sounds obvious, but it is universally ignored in business and politics and we have no shortage of writers telling us what is wrong and have great things used to be and why things used to work fewer of us some focus legislative reform Going Forward. I would like to myself in the last group and i think that work is important, but even for me yuvals message was a wakeup call. To pass reform start not with legislative conference, but with a picture of how things can look, not with an eye teary, but with the beach. Yuval forces everyone to think about the beach and a provide a compelling one of his own. Many people will disagree with his particular vision, but i really believe he will force more debate to occur on those terms and that america will be better for it. So, here to tell you more, yuval levin. [applause]. Thank you very much for that, oren cass, i appreciate that enormously in the thought that i would be a mentor to you is both scary and wonderful, so i appreciate it and thank you especially to the Manhattan Institute for inviting me to talk and for everything you do. Him a grateful consumer so much of what am i does both in publishing and National Affairs and justin reading what you publish and learning from it. I have never before thought of what im doing as described in a beach and from now on i will. Thank you. That said, im going to start with something a little bit more depressing than a beach. I will speak just briefly give you a little bit of an overview of what this book is and what it has to say and then hear what you are interested in what you are thinking about an and what you take away from what im trying to offer. I will start with the book, which is the simple fact that american Politics Today and in some respect American Society is a drowning in a kind of frustration or at least anxiety. We are living through what seems to be very uneasy time that is reflected in the tone and tenor of our debates and the kinds of candidates that are rising and filling to voters in the source of concerns you heal your people expressing. If you pool was into our political conversations enough to conclude that america is deeply frustrated. At first glance its not particularly hard to say why we should be frustrated. Its not that hard to explain the attitude or for one thing, our copy has been very sluggish since the 21st century began and not only during the Great Recession or after it, the strongest year of Economic Performance in the century was 12 years ago, 2004. Even that year we saw growth that barely reached the average of any of the prior four decades. The sluggishness of the economy leaves people feeling like theyre running in place, which is part of the frustration that people feel. At the same time the century began with the worst terrorist attack in our countrys history and has left us with a sense which has not changed or vetted that is the hope we might of had four the somewhat peaceful postcold war order in the 90s has been shattered. Our partisan politics at the same time has been polarized and intensely divisive. Our cultural battles of it very sensitive subjects from stem cells to marriage and sexuality to religious liberty to National Identity has been a fight at a fever pitch that has left everyone feeling like they are besieged and offended at the same time and key indicators across the lines between politics and economics and culture, things like family breakdown and inequality have also pointed in the wrong direction for longtime. And has stood in the way of mobility and of the american dream. So, the opening years of the 21st century of even americans on reason to worry, but theres also plainly been more to the frustration of this time than just a straightforward response of circumstances. Our problems are real, but the weight we talk about them is often disconnected from reality so that the kinds of diagnoses and prescription people offer up seems only to contribute to the kind of this orientation that certifies our public life. When you listen carefully to what is being said in our politics you realize disconnected often in a particular way, our way of talking about her problems now is it dominated by the nostalgia, powerful and widely shared sense that our country has lost ground, that we have fallen far and fast from a peak that a lot of americans can still remember. Will give you an example i think will strike you as familiar, not because you have heard this the tickler wine before, but you hear it all the time. How often have you heard a politician in the last few years Say Something like this many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or business downtown. Didnt always need a degree. , titian was premuch limited to your neighbors and if you work hard chances are youd have a job for life with a decent paycheck and good benefits and vocational promotion maybe even the pride of senior kids work the same company. That world has changed and for many that change has been painful. That happens to be president obama in the state of the Union Address a couple years ago, but it could easily be a most any politician in either party at this point with a little metamorphosis on cultural cohesion of that time that everyone so mrs. Him out of it a have been mitt romney in the last election with more explicit emphasis on low inequality of that time it couldve been Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren and often is with poor grammar and less coherence of more anger it can be donald trump are now. Calling for rolling back liberalization immigration and recovering what weve lost. America just isnt what it used to be. Thats the theme of contemporary american politics. It seeks to a public anxiety that often comes down to a question that is asked in english, what has happened to our country. You know, its not a bad question. Something big and significant surly has happened to our country and it is less cartoonish form the nostalgia that we see in todays politics is understandable. Of the america that is exhausted and miss politics this is so much, a nation that has emerged from the Second World War, Great Depression and evolved from there with an exceptionally unified cohesive. It had at first an amazing confidence in big institutions, Big Government and big labor and big business managing the nation together in meeting a need. That confidence is stunning when you look at what people were saying and thinking in midCentury America from her vantage point. Americas cultural life midcentury was not much less consolidated cook it was dominated by a broad traditionalist moral consensus, religious attendance was at a peak and families were strong, birth rates were high, divorce rates were low and in a wake of a work in which most competitors literally burned each other a contrary to the grout the United States to him in the world economy, which were well allowed us to offer Economic Opportunities to all kinds of workers with all kind of skill levels. Most immediately after the war, the consolidated nation started a long process of unwinding, a fragmenting. Over the subsequent decade with verizon and struggles against racism coincided with a massive increase in immigration and its import to recognize the latter, which we dont think about the scale quite enough. Because of immigration restrictions theres been an that should have been enacted in 1920 midCentury America had a low level of Cultural Diversity until those were lifted in the 1960s. In the 1970s census the percentage of People Living in america who had been born abroad was at an alltime low of 4. 5 . Today, its back near an alltime high bomb of almost 20 and that is part of what is happened to our country. Meanwhile, key parts of the economy, some were deregulated to keep up with rising competitors and our labor market was forced by the pressures of globalization to specialize in higher skilled work that has diminished opportunities for some americans with lower levels of education and in politics a very unusual midcentury elite consensus of important issues gave way by the 70s to renewed divisions that have only beginning sharper and chopper sense. In what area after another america in the immediate postwar years was a moderate model consolidation and consensus, but through the decades that consensus fractured and by the end of the 20th century this fracturing of d census grew from confusion into polarization, polarization of political views, Economic Opportunities, income of family patterns and way of life. Week grew less conformist and more fragment. All of this has make gains were america, which we should not overlook in prosperity, personal liberty and Cultural Diversity and technological process, really just an option of choices in every part of my. Overtime its also meant a loss of faith and institution, loss of social order and structure, loss of National Cookies and art security and instability for a lot of workers of cultural and political consensus and those losses have piled up in ways that often seem to overwhelm and have made our 21st century politics distinctly backward looking and unhappy. Conservatives and liberals emphasize different facets of the source of changes. Liberals tend to treasure the social liberation, growing Cultural Diversity, but to a meant that economic in not about [inaudible] social instability, moral disorder, breakdown of families and other institutions in the troubles news changes are all tied together. Liberalization of the left celebrates the fragmentation of the writer left and vice versa. That set of the forces liberalizing and fragmenting, diversifying and fracturing functions of the essential driving force of American Life cynthia and of the Second World War, individualism. In very broad terms the first half of the 20th century a few the Second World War was major going consolidation and confusion in American Life as our economy industrialized, government grew more centralized , culture became obligated through truly mass media and National Identity and cohesion work for valued above in the belgian diversity work in those years a great many of the most powerful forces in our country were pushing every american to become more like everyone else in the country that emerged from world war ii was highly exceptionally cohesive. The second half of the 20th century and the early decades of the 21st century have marked in age of growing the consolidation, that the culture became increasingly barricaded and diverse that the economy gradually diversified and in some respect deregulated and individualism have come to be held up above conformity or National Unity and these years a lot of most powerful forces in our country have driven people not to be more like everyone else, but have driven each of us to be more like ourselves. Mid20th Century America, especially 1950s and 60s stood between these two distinguishable period and for a time they were able to keep 1 foot in each. Combining dynamism with cohesion to extraordinary degree. That kind of straddling cohesion and diffusion really was a wonder to behold, not surprising we idolize time and miss it. It offered as a stable backdrop for different kinds of liberalization be it towards cultural liberalization or for your economics, but that liberalization now has done its work in our country, our society is its result. We are a highly individualistic diverse fragmented country, economically, politically and culturally none of that is about to be undone. We will have to solve the problems we have as that kind of society, both are strengths and weaknesses are functions of the past that we have traveled together and will now have to draw on the strengths to address those witnesses. This in one sense is what has happened to our country, the essential challenge of the politics of the 21st Century America. Had to use the advantages of a diverse time manic Dynamic Society to address disadvantages of a fractured and insecure society, but if that does not sound like the question our politics is asking itself now its because it is not. Our political culture is not been very good at grasping the challenges we face are the strengths we have in tracing them. Its instead been overwhelmed by nostalgia, by desire to reverse the process of liberalization diffusion as transformed our society and so whether in economic terms to the left or cultural terms of the right to recreate a consolidated centralized consensus driven society that we were not that long ago. The First Step Towards a constructive point for century politics would be to see the reversal is not an option and we probably wouldnt want to do it anyway. Instead, we have to think about how to address the challenges of dissolution and diffusion, challenges like a breakdown of the family, loss of worker security, growing polarization. By making the most of strengths like diversity, like dynamism of specialization pick the question could help point the way towards the next set of construction political policy debates, not this year, apparently. But, when our politics is finally ready to face reality. How do we use are very fragmentation excels as a strength . For all of our troubles in this Election Year i think conservatives ultimately are actually will position to offer a plausible survey answers to that question. Using our diversity and fragmentation as a tool of problemsolving would require an approach to government that problem solvers throughout our society rather than hoping that just one in washington could get things right. It means bringing the dispersed incremental bottom up approach to that you increasingly seeing every other part of American Life. And approach the salts problems like any people lots of options and letting their choices drive the process. Division of problemsolving is not with the social democratic ideal to the left looks like that idea looks more like the industrial economy, but this more distributed decentralized vision of problemsolving is what conservatives often have to offer and how the modern postindustrial accounting works. Its also the logic of federalism of the Constitutional Order and logic is articulated by the best traditions of our civilization. Italian revitalized conservativism could be a tool of modernization of revival. Of that kind of approach is what conservatives are proposing where we come at you, the Manhattan Institute and others of the most active over the years thats a School Choice looks like. Thats what the conservative approach to healthcare looks like an conservative ideas on welfare or Higher Education looks like. As those kind of examples with suggest this sort of bottomup approach has been championed by conservatives in some areas were longtime though with limited success against progressive welfare states, but as old progressive model exhausts ourselves the time is growing ripe, i think, for new conservative approach to make its case more boldly, familiar arenas and new ones. That kind of modernized conservativism would also have a lot to offer our trouble or cultural. Its enormous challenge. That consensus was always shakier than it seemed and his dependents on the support of only loosely affiliated moral and religious traditionalists and as every National Consensus has weakened this more majority approach has become unsustainable. Loosely affiliated traditionalists have become unaffiliated and social conservatives need to get used to be in the minority in a fractured country. In that kind of society, moral traditionalists would be wise to emphasize building cohesive and attractive subcultures rather than struggling for dominance of the increasingly weakened institution of the mainstream culture and while some National Political battles i think especially those of religious liberty who remain essential to preserve this base for traditionalism, social conservatives who need to focus on how best to fill that space in their own community. Thats how a traditionalist moral minority can thrive in a diverse america, by offering itself not as a path back, but as an attractive vibrant alternative to the demoralizing chaos of a permissive society. In this sense and really in general the revival of that institutions of Community Life would be an essential feature that is kind of modernizing conservatives in these institutions and family, churches, civic and fraternal associations and business groups and even local government can help the two balance dynamism with cohesion. They can keep our diversity from devolving into dangerous balkanization and help us use our multiplicity to address her modern challenges and thats ultimately what the path out of the overpowering frustration that now dominates our policies can look like, a more decentralized diverse bottomup politics that lowers the stakes of our National Debate and uses our Society Diversity as a means of solving its problems. That kind of politics can help us to more than that by revitalizing the layers of our society and help to draw spec into the vital space between individuals and so to counteract both isolating individualism that increasingly characterizes our culture and the overbearing centralization that rather naturally accompanies it and characterizes our politics. In the process it can help us reunite our fractured republic to build in our communities the virtues necessary for american citizenship. We are often lacking on those virtues and in that sense of common purpose this Election Year has shown us that it has been leaving us concerned for the fate of our country. Of the frustration of that is on display and the crude and angry populism that is working to channel it forces us to ask what happened to our country, but they do not define what will happen next. This this election earmarks not the beginning of a new phase in american politics, but the end of an old one, the exhaustion of a mid 20th century baby boom or model of National Politics that cannot meet americas needs anymore. , for the exhaustion of that baby boomer order is really what will be on display this fall with 270year old president ial candidates yelling at each other about how best to go backwards. To see the way forward, we need to open our eyes americas 21st century circumstances to grasp the challenges and opportunities that they represent and to see how again applying our enduring american principles to novel circumstances can be the recipe for unamerican revival. Thank you. [applause]. Well, we will take questions from the audience. I will as the first question as it was in the audience. I was going to ask you to say more about some of the mediating cetaceans you were describing and the ones you listed as examples are ones that were so prominent in the 50s and 60s whether fraternal organizations come churches, labor organizations and so do you see a role for those in the future or as they hold new wave of mediating institutions that you think are more likely to succeed thank you. Great question. First of all, i think it sometimes can seem like those were the institutions that were prominent, but really by then those institutions had already been subject to a halfcentury basalt from a kind of centralized politics that took away a lot of what they were doing. Its very interesting to read the sociology of the 1950s about the mediating institutions. Robert nisbet is the best way to go in the quest for the community, which is a timely book was written in 1953. At a time when we think of as the peak of this kind of Civil Society america. He was writing the no, Civil Society had been undone by essentially progressivism for a halfcentury and he worried that the next step after centralizing would be a kind of atomism, radical individualism that would all boldly break the parties and he was right in a lot of ways, but i would not look to that meant to solve the problem. In a lot of respects the challenges we face now i like the challenges the us based in the 19th century and a must in any point the 19th century they would be putting aside 1860s and looked at america he wouldve found a country that was very diverse, intensely divided, had no confidence in institutions. If you couldve taken a poll in 19th Century America at any point the Approval Rating for congress wouldve been 2 . You dont have to read a lot of mark twain to get a sense of what people thought of american institutions and for many of the same reasons that were in this situation now. Now, weve reached this point as the country that lived through that midcentury moment. The country that lived through progressivism and live through this era of individualism, so we can go back or assume those institutions have been sitting there when he pressed back. That the rooms where they met are sitting and can we could go back again. It will take a different kind of revitalization, revival. I think above, what it requires is making those kinds of institutions significant, giving them authority, making what they do matter and that means giving them a role in trying to solve the problems we have, which to the extent that Public Policy can do much about that would require devolution, decentralization of our welfare system, of our education system, of our Healthcare System and other things. It seems to me there is a big role for a kind of decentralizing conservativism. We do also have other kinds of mediating institutions, which i think is what youre getting at, that are creatures of the internet age, for one thing or that have come up in more recent times to try to help us all the kinds of problems we have now. Those are, like everything else, a mixed bag in the engine in a lot of ways accelerates the kind of atomism and hyper individualism that we suffer from because it allows us to be very selective about the experiences we have and the people interact with. It to let this be more and more likely already are all the time. Thats not a bad thing. We all do it because we like it, but it does mean the effect it has on our social life can tend to weaken the middling institutions were actual communities reside, but i think those can certainly be part of what it would take to bring people back into the genuinely mediating institutions. I think we are headed towards a more fragmented future. However, looking back over the past 60 years, Measure Development you have it mentioned, the end of deeply seated theological conflict about the role of government and the truth is the traditional left is defeated. Its even that in europe. We are not going to see a large government future in that sense our government takes over the management of the economy. Its not going happen. On the other hand the right has accepted the welfare state. It may differ how to organize it and how much we should have, but in my time in washington i have not seen very many conservatives were truly libertarian, who went to limit the welfare state, so we are tagamet a future without what we are happy instead is what you call fragmentation and i think that is quite accurate compared to 50 years ago, but that future that you are imagining is above all individualists future in which people somehow take on what i call the burdens burdens of freedom, responsible and that goes and living in a free society and miscarried danger is a not that the fragmentation will be too much is that major parts of america will cease to be individualist and will lay down burdens of freedom and take up another set of burdens having to do with necessity. Those burdens dominate the entire outside row, the entire world outside the west in that world is falling apart. They are coming to our borders seeking entry and also yeah, okay the question is how you would assert [inaudible] rather than the loss of unity as you has described. I was almost afraid you were going to ask a question without getting the people upset, but you didnt. I dont quite agree. In a sense, can try this book out of a question thats a little bit like the question. The book i wrote before this was a somewhat different kind of book, more historical philosophical, but it was about the roots of the left right divide, which he suggests sort of concern and. Therefore, really the nature of the left right divide. Thinking about what the basic questions were and the premise of that and i think its also ultimately devastated in that argument or look at the history is that the left right divide in genuinely liberal societies is not an extreme divide between radical libertarianism and a socialism pick the left right divide is a disagreement between two kinds of liberalism, two kinds of liberalism that actually differ profoundly in their anthropology and sense of what the human being is and their ideas about how we come to know things in the world and how problems can be solved. The differences are real, but there are differences within the 40yard line and a kovarik in has really only always shown that. The history that sugiyama said ended never really happened in america anyway. We always lived in a different way and i think the anglosphere in general for the most part has not experienced the kind of struggle of fascism against communism or even a genuinely radical libertarianism against a truly totalizing kind of socialism. So, the trouble that i see looking at our politics now through the kind of lens is it not that politics is small, but it is totally disconnected from todays problems. There is a kind of left right debate we could have that would be at american left right debate , not to radical ends, but a progressive sense of what to do about the 21st century and a conservative point and both of them would have something to contribute. I think what would be better than the other, but we dont have that debated all. Thats not even whats going on and in a sense the question of why that is where the question i was left with at the end of the last book that led me to this one because i think the reason fundamentally as neither of our parties, need to of our large ideological coalitions is look at the 21st century in its own terms and if they did they would actually both have a lot more to offer than in half and the leaders of both seem totally aware of what they might have to offer the public and instead, every election is a choice between 1965 and 1981 in the public looks at that just thinks what is this. So, im not sure that the end of history is really that big of a change for america. Whatever you make ultimately of secam was argument about Global Politics i think eight kind of middling politics in our country is what we have with things were working and its not what we have now, not in the sense that our politics is terribly radical , but in the sense is totally disoriented and not looking at the problems that it might have something to say. [inaudible question] the problem i see is that we have had eight years of increasing centralization and increasing power to the Central Government and the way that that she markets are saying we will have another four or eight years of that, so how are these institutions to grow when the Central Government, healthcare is now much more centralized and every day you read in the paper about another agency squeezing out some of these middle level things. So, how is it actually going to happen when we have this huge Central Governments growing and growing and taking over thinks . Look, we have had more than eight years of centralization. With ed 80 years of centralization and i think that puts the question in a slightly differently because it seems to me that the last eight years have not been particularly the most successful times for american progressivism in the last 80 years have been pretty successful times for progressivism. We do stand out a point where our way of thinking about politics and government is awfully centralized and i dont see that in fact as intention with the dynamic of individualism that has been evident in our culture and i think those two things go together. A lot of people have made that argument. Here coming that is the argument that this state was getting at that ultimately individualism moral individualism and administrative centralization are two sides of one point and now is go together because one needs the other and makes the other possible. So, conservatism doesnt choose one of those, it offers an alternative to the commission of the two event and thats why seems to me it has to focus is up on the middle space between individual and state. At the how, its not hard to persuade americans doubt that this isnt working. The problem americans had in the 1960s, the problem conservatives had was that a lot of americans believed that it could work, that the Great Society would succeed in solving the nations problem. The sheer confidence in that when you look at opinion polls and look at what politician said in the 50s, but especially the early 60s is amazing. No one talks like that Bernie Sanders is not talk like that. The notion that poverty is behind us, Lyndon Johnson tells the students at the university of michigan in 1964. Now, we have to figure out how to not to get bored in a society that does not have problems. Thats not how we think about and so if you begin your approach to the public by telling people this doesnt work and in fact what we can offer you something that is much more likely to work and that would be persuasive because in part it looks like what does work in American Life. Its it does not make the assumption that someone in the head office has all the answers. It makes the assumption that by getting people a lot of choices you could gradually and incrementally improve them. I think that makes sense for the 21st Century America. Its an old idea and what conservativism has always had, but also a new idea, so i think conservatives are in a stronger place that we give ourselves credit for and theres no way to find out if we can succeed except by trying, which were the moments is not what we are doing. Brilliance review, breathtaking. Lets you the candidates that you would recommend rather than these 270 euros that are screaming at each other. So, tell us, sir. The last thing i would ever want to be is president rick i used to work for a president and i dont know why anyone wants to be president. Yesterday truly crazy, so we shouldnt be surprised crazy people are running. I think with the candidate would have to say to the public would have to begin from a kind humility about the nature of what he or she could do as president in solving problems. Would have to begin from a recognition that not everything in 21st Century America is a problem, not every fact of our contemporary nationalized life is a problem, but we face discrete problems. Some of them are economic, some are cultural, moral and to varying degrees there are ways for government to be helpful or at least less harmful in helping the country deal with these problems. I think the kind of policy agenda that would have to be attached to that would be driven by the sense that Solutions Work best when they work from the bottom up and so you can take any sort of issues you want. We talked the healthcare, the healthcare debate we have had in the last few years has been that the picketing of the left right divide on how to set solve problems so that theres a certain amount of agreement about the nature of the problem that our Healthcare System is incredibly inefficient and costs are out of control. With there is is disagreement about how you solve it had a problem and from the left you get a centralizing answer that says the solution is just the right mit professor to set it up for your make sure everyone has to buy what he is selling and the rights answer is give people more choices and offer more kinds of products to be sold in insurance, allow for more services to be sold and allow people to have the resources they need to become consumers in that kind system. Gradually, you will make your way towards a better system. I dont think you could find a lot of americans who have any idea that thats what conservatives say the healthcare. I dont think that conservatives have done a very good job of explaining the basic difference of how we think about how to solve problems and so whether you use healthcare as an illustration oregon education or welfare or any of the massive problems we have it seems to me its a practical matter, a candidate inclined to think that way is in a pregood position to have a lot to draw from the Manhattan Institute, from what we try to publish with National Affairs. In a funny way we have more of the kind of programmatic faulty ideas than we do a division of how how this is different and might make sense as part of what this book is about an part of what a lot of people are trying to do, but the American Public doesnt have the faintest idea that there is this basic difference about is all problems and that conservatives are on the side of the question that they might find attractive. So, to begin with i think you want a politician whos capable of making that kind of argument. There arent a lot of them. There are some that i do tend to be younger. Republicans do now have some promising younger member of congress and when his speaker of the house. There are a few in the senate, not a lot, but it does not take them in uniting to change the tone of how you approach the public, to change the substance of how you approach the public and frankly to put aside the kind of cataclysmic rhetoric that is at the very core of how conservatives talk to the public even when we try to offer solutions we say we dont turn this around right now it is the end of the american republic. Well, thats just not true. Its also not helpful but its not the way to persuade anyone have anything. If you listen to someone say that you think thats probably crazy and it probably is. The problem we have is actually worse than that. Its not that if we dont do something we will face a moment when editing changes. The problem is if we dont change things now, we will gradually decline. We could keep doing that for a long time and we better not. Thats a harder case to make to people that just want to be a great, but i think its closer to the truth and probably more persuasive. Hello, trent seven yuval. Think about all of these communities and the central creation across america did you find in researching the book evidence or things that we could tie count on for optimism that some of these communities are actually up to the pasco decentralization or to building these communities . It seems if you read murray and others it seems like these communities have decayed so much that there is at the social capital there to revive these communities, especially the wealthy segregate elsewhere, so did you find anything that would be a source of optimism . Think you, dan. I would never want to be accused of optimism. [laughter] as i a good thing thats not a good thing. Optimism is just expecting good things to happen and thats crazy guy would want to be accused of being hopeful and i think thats very different to be hopeful is to believe there are the resources for improvements and whether those are Material Resources or moral or spiritual resources, takes all of them to do think that those are there. Now, obviously, in the places that most need help those resources are most lacking. Thats how they got into the situation there in and why they have remained in it and what it means to be in the most trouble. So, its true that in a lot of communities that Charles Murray describes and a lot that you find not fight off from here there are problems that arent going to be resolved by someone on the outside of just saying figured out, have a meeting. Thats now it means to have a little more faith in Civil Society, but i think that when you ask yourself how do i hope, how do we make a difference that answer needs to involve ways of building things up within those communities rather than ways of mailing checks to just the right address and thats her to do from the center. Is just the difficulty you are going to have with a cash welfare state in a country as fast as our sphere so, think that the diversity of problems we have requires enormous diversity of solutions. When you think about welfare, he always think of the opening line of anna karin, all happy families are alike in their happiness, but every unhappy family is unhappy in their own way. In other words, its true success has a certain look to it , but that does not help when youre trying to deal with failure, which has its very own look to it and people who try to think about how to help the most troubled places have to begin in those places and so thats an argument for a kind of evolved welfare policy. Its not an argument for assuming that all the resources are there. Its an argument for helping to build those and for believing that building those can make a difference. Okay, i went to deposit a scenario, so uber in san antonio or in austin, gus i guess. Uber is not a bottomup solution, but uber is a technological, social transformation of how people get around and then you have people using the levers of government to block the progress that is itself entirely extra governmental. Cannot simply as a matter of people owning phones, having wifi and gps and cars being able to talk to them. Fast forward 25 and 30 years and you have a self driving car, which means you dont have to own a car because you can order the car to come to you and take you somewhere. That itself is a kind of gigantic social, Economic Transformation that you can see coming and you can also see a grade, a colossal number of forces that will do whatever they can to impede the progress to the point and the question is , is it a political matter that a combined a set of forces people to build the case of help when those forces arise to make Technological Progress impossible or does one live in a sort of technocratic fantasy in which you will sibley happen and you cant stop and it will have been away hollywood took over my bill or Something Like that, but in political terms we can see the transformation youre talking about and we can also see how it will be how the levers of government can be used to make impossible or at least to slow down so that the transition will be the worst possible kind of transition, slow, unwieldy, costly, painful and without much benefit when its all done. I think it away the story of uber that all is our world are so obsessed with hopes to tell every go of that story and theres a reason we like it so much. So, uber is a great example of how we try to overcome those limitations because what they did in a lot of large silly cities is just kind of do it without permission. They knew they would get in trouble, but they just went in and became popular quickly and in a lot of places that meant the men could not be stopped and thats what happened in washington where theres a very strong cabdrivers lobby, but it got to a point where it would be crazy for city council to do anything about over because there would be a revolution. Thats one way to think about this problem youre describing, but theres no question that there is always resistance to changes to a system that helps incumbent actors. That means theres no question that any kind of reform along these lines are going to be messy and slow and not ideal. Im not of the view that messy as low as the worst way for change to happen. I think in some ways messy and slow might be best way for change to happen because if its to quick its very likely to involve the embodiment of some terrible idea. If its slower it can over time try to weed out those terrible ideas. Messy, we are a cockaded society and so a change that that this will be messy. Think the essence of the question is how do you deal with the inherent cronyism of the status quo that will try to prevent improvements and i do think that is one of the great challenges for people who want to advance this kind of vision, so one of the great challenges it for conservatives Going Forward is to become sworn enemies of cronyism, which if you look at the Republican Party you would not say is now the case. I think its very important for people who try to influence the politicians on the right to talk a lot about this and to make much of it because its extremely important. Ultimately, it becomes impossible for the sorts of changes we want to happen if we allow the people who are noun the system to have so much control of the process and change and its more cronyism is not just a way of trying to sort of send a populist message and show people we are on their side. I think it can be that. The notion there is a lot of political gain from that has always struck as overstated and i think cronyism exist because it benefits a lot of people and people tend to like it, but its an enormous problem to anyone who believes that the way to advance progress is through competition because cronyism if it is anything it is anti competitive, so its really it cuts to the heart of what i would want to see happen, so i do think that its a question to constantly asking constantly wrestle with and think about. The only answer is to fight it and knowing you wont always win, but you can make progress if what you are offering is attractive. On michael myers, president of the new York Civil Rights Coalition and make question relates to the proposition you put out that america is now it used to be in for a lot of americans the answer of that proposition would be thank god. You have blacks, other racial minorities, women, yet gays, lesbians, labor unions and so Many Americans who feel that america is not should not ever be what used to be, so my question is with respect to the socially change movement in america, that was not brought through a left right lens. There were people on the left, right, middle and you had a consensus. It was based on Public Opinion and public change in the congress, legislative executive and judiciary branch, so how do you move us to a position where we continue to protect ndjamena frankly said to keep our public based on not seen a divide among americans between left and right , but try to bridge the left right divide to really address serious real problems in our society . Thank you for the question and first of i would say i am one of the people who is critical of the notion that america is now it used to be. Thats all there is to say. I think thats the wrong way to think about the present and things have gotten both better and worse and they are always getting both better and worse and i think thats what makes it frustrating to be in and around politics is that there is no easy argument to make about the direction of change and there is all is a cost to progress and always a cost to resisting progress. To your more general question, it does seem to me that in a lot of ways we are having too many of the most important fights in our political life at the National Level and part of what, i mean, by arguing that our politics need to be somewhat decentralized is that some of these arguments need to be had by people who are looking at one another and that is surely one way to get around that divide. Its a lot easier to sustain an abstract than when its you and your neighbor. So, i cannot for the life of me see why we have to decide who gets to go to a to bathroom in the white house i just dont think its necessary to do that and it would be a lot easier to live with one another if we didnt have to have one answer for the entire country without question decided by the president and so i think there are a lot of issues like that and that for both practical reasons and for these kinds of civic peace reasons and social progress reasons would be better taken up now at a level closer to the ground for the most part. Not every question is like that. There are questions we just have to resolve as a people, but i think we take me we to me questions to that level now and it just raises the tempter of our politics to such a degree that it becomes unsustainable and that all we ever do is yell about how the whole world hinges on the result of this next election. We can change that and i think we ought to. Thank you to yuval, for fantastic discussion cormac. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] you are watching the tv on cspan2, television for serious readers. Is a look at whats on primetime tonight. We will kick off the evening at 7 00 p. M. Eastern with a Panel Discussion on Hillary Clintons book, takes a village. At 8 30 p. M. Former secret Service Officer gary burns tells us of his time in the way has been the Clinton Administration and a 9 30 p. M. Eastern, Chicago Bulls player craig hodges tots to book tv about his book. Coming up at 10 00 p. M. On book tvs afterwards, Heather Mcdonald talks about pleasing in america. We will finish up our prime time programming at 11 00 p. M. With a talk by author mary eberstadt. Religious freedom and its enemies. That habits and i on cspan2 book tv. s defense is a publicity manager for the Illinois Press. Steve, what new books do you have coming out this fall . With a lot of great titles including one that is a look at the history of the atlantic slave trade called, slavery of the sea. Its really one of the first indepth looks at the mechanics of slavery at sea and the making of slaves as they were being transported in bondage from one continent to north america. Its really shows how this dehumanizing process happens if i step and explains a lot of how the process of slavery transforms the spirit of people to be put in that position and that will be coming out in november. What else do you got . We also have a book which looks at the 1936 olympics commonly called the nazi olympics. The book is called, six minutes in berlin. Some may be familiar with the story of the American Rowing Team that won the gold medal that year and people know jesse owens, when in the goldmedal as well. That olympics really was the first time the Worldwide Sports Media Business started and the six minutes in berlin are the six minutes that the race took, broadcast live around the world for the rowers to win and defeats the favored nazi rowers. Steve that, can you give me history of the university of Illinois Press and what books do you publish . We are approaching in 2018 our 100th year of publishing out of the university of illinois and we represent all three campuses of the university of illinois and are based in champaign urbana, but represent the chicago campus and sprint campus and we have been publishing in a variety of subjects over those 100 years as may have thought of what we were just talking about. History is a strong subject, music and american root music are big subjects as well as labor, history, africanamerican history and a number of other titles. Give me one more title for this vital fall. One more title thats exciting and interesting is a bit of an expansion from our work in the mormon studies and its called, buried witness. And edited collection that is put together and is the firsthand stories of 36 mormon women in all spectrum of the faith representing different stories of how they deal with marriage, love, sex, how they deal with marrying outside of the mormon religion and the pressures that come in some cases to have a very traditional mormon relationship and eight book that ties in with some of our feminist studies. When is that coming out in september. Steve fast. Cspan created by americas cabletelevision Company Brought to you as a Public Service by your cable or satellite provider. Starting on book tv author and documentary filmmaker sebastian younger. Mr. Youngers whose books include the perfect storm, were his most recent tribe answered viewer questions and talked about his books during our indepth program. In gillette, wyoming . Guest i graduated college, and i had grope up on the east coast in a suburb of boston and felt like id never really been challenged in my life. I grew up in an affluent environment and decided to set off, like many young people, ch