For the serious discussion of political things, admirersmic friends, and intelligent critics of course. Political science over the half past century, much like the social sciences in general, has been obsessed with or consumed by often narrow and therefore measurable aspects of Human Affairs. Underlying assumption that an inquiry into facts must be separated from any discussion values. But weve always thought, to greatrase the late and political flosser, that to the extent Human Affairs and cannot bethings properly understood without taking into account the purposes principles that actually move human beings and political communities, any science or inquiry worth its salt must take truth ofunt the whole political action, facts and values. Or as we prefer to refer to them, moral truths or principles of reason and human nature. Of modern Political Science must miss a crucial part of political things by leaving questions of value. It is in that sense very unscientific or can be. Made our focus, with our longtime distinguished oflow called the scholarship the politics of freedom, at our nonprofit. And that brings me to our panels topic today, the future of conservatism. I need not tell all of you, i the future ofhat conservatism indeed the shape of our National Politics generally is an open question, in a way that we havent seen in some time. Trump, whatever you may think of avenues opened up new for fresh thinking about the statesmans perennial task, the application of timeless truths about human nature, like those declaration of independence and their prudent application to circumstances, 10 or 20 or 30om years ago, let alone from the time of the founding or the of americanis government since. So i look forward very much to our discussion today and our panelists. Om our ill introduce them in the order in which theyll speak. Marini is professor of Political Science at the university of nevadareno, a fellow of the claremont institute. Hes written extensively on philosophy and american politics and the bureaucracy and the Administrative State and was an insighive interpreter fascinatingumps rise in american politics. Is an endowed professor of politics at hillsdale college. He teaches in the graduate school. Hes been writing articles and ed editing volumes for many years on politics. All to pick up his important new book, by cambridge, natural rights Public Policy and the of freedom. Ions is at texas tech university. Before that, dr. Balch was the founding president of the National Association of scholars served for 25 years and did great work promoting the western great texts of civilization, work he was honored for in 2007, with the National Humanities medal. And finally, michael anton, Deputy Assistant to the president on the National Security council. Former manager and has fored in speech writing giuliani and george w. Bush. He was the author last fall of important and intent essay on intelligent essay. We have copies in the back. I encourage you to pick up a copy if you dont have one, called the flight 93 election. But i would like to point out as his wonderful essays, on topics ranging from california tom wolf andine to even to the beach boyce. That, well start off with dr. Marini. Ithe future of conservatism. Panel. Our i think were entitled to ask if contemporary conservatism has a or deserves one as it is presently constituted. Is most often understood as a defense of tradition. Against anerstood, ongoing and transformative liberalism. Intellectually it is understood as a philosophy of history in isch purposeful change revealed rationally as the ground of social progress. Opposeally, those who change or progress are reactionaries or conservative. Liberals who embrace tonge, conservatives cling an anachronistic past. The historical understanding, the original historical andrstanding of liberalism conservatism derives from the upheavals brought about in the aftermath of the french revolution. It was an intellectual and political response to the revolution that had been justified on behalf of a doing mattic understanding of reason. The backlash against toolutionary fervor served undermine theoretical or fill a do in europe, conservatives were those that were opposed to revolution and their political agenda was understood as a defense of the precededons that revolution. The defense of the past or tradition came to be understood of the old regime. In in europe, that required a defense of the tradition of altar, a political defense of the monarchy and the established church. American conservatism could not understand itself in this way. America established itself on the grounds of a revolution. The revolution as a great good for mankind. That defense of revolution was not a defense of an established church, institutionalized monarchy or modern state as emerged in the 19th century. Wasamerican revolution understood as a political civile of a regime, of and religious liberty in which the church could not depend upon enforce itso claims, nor could government, limited by constitutional restraints, undermine the church or the traditions of the society. Ons of civil conservatism was not understood as merely a doctrine or even a upheldo be intellectually as the antidote to liberalism. A politicalht to be defense of a conventional way of life, one that preserved the best of the past as essential to that tradition. Although america established revolutionary foundation, unlike france, it did not attempt to initiate a of things that would obliterate the traditional religious and intellectual legacy of the past. Indeed, in the eyes of the founders, the revolution and its reconstitution was meant to highest intellectual, political and religious traditions of the past, derived philosophy, literature, science and theology and would be a defense of the founding and those eternal principles on which it has established itself. Transhistorical ideas derived from reason, nature, and or revelation. Incorporated and attempted to reconcile the tension politicaln the theological dilemma and thereby of life derived from each. A conservative defense of the aerican regime would require defense of the theoretical principles upon which the regime founded, those first principle that is transcend historical time. The political theory of the american founding is rendered meaningless if it is understood in terms of histor cyst thought. Not surprised that the philosophic ground of the regimen revolution and established is no longer a lib forgor liberals or conservative. Lincoln was faced with the dilemma of understanding what part of the past could be preserved and which must be changed, he had to come to grips the meaning of conservatism. At a time when the political meaning of whichvident truths established the First Principles of revolution had been denied. Lincoln had been condemned by enemies as a revolutionary. Noted in the civil cooper union address, and i quote, you say you are conservative, imminently conservative. Revolutionary, destructive of something of the sort. What is conservatism . Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried. We stick to contend for the identical old policy on the of controversy adopted by our fathers who framed the weernment and under which lived. Accord,u, with one reject and scout and spit upon the old policy and insist upon substituting something new. Thats the end of lincolns quote. His opponentsthat were unanimous in their defense their new, despite disagreement concerning what the new policy should be. Noted, again, and i quote, true, you disagreed yourselves as to what this substitute should be. You are divided upon propositions and plans but andimous on rejecting denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Is the not the contemporary recognition of politics, as made the intelligible only in terms modernory, the confirmation of the in fact there is agreement between and conservatives simply because they have both rejected the old policy of the fathers, or natural right itself. Attack on met physical almost it has become impossible to establish an objective or nonhistor cyst principle. Lincoln was aware that the only defense of the try and true of the defense of the unchanging principles of political right that must be anerstood in terms of unchanging human nature. It presupposed a distinction between theoretical and practical reason which made it distinguish unchanging principles from policies that must change, according to the circumstances. That understanding was based upon an assumption of the benevolence of nature, natures capacity of human reason to comprehend and impose freedom limits on human that are necessary to ensure human happiness. Old can also the be defended as the good, that andervative or the tried true can remain a living thing. It is the most recent historicists understanding of freedom that has revealed nature and hass tyrannical attempted complete self philosophicof reason by liberating the creative individual from the imposed by nature and reason itself, identity is something that must be freely chosen and self created and expressed by the individual inne and it must be defended Civil Society by government and law. Dependenttitutions upon the old morality have intellectually indefensible. Thought,of political it is the good understood that no longer defensible. This makes the defense of conservatism and constitutionalism itself as defense ofkin to the a dream, that only masquerades as reality and only in the minds of its devotees. History understood theoretically is the way in which contemporary define himself. Progressism was confident itself, it was providing the light to a glorious future. Intellectualsve lost confidence in the idea of progress, as well as technical scientific reason, they abandoned the hope of a future good and began to revise the the past. Historical he realize that the excess of history has attacked the life, it nors of longer understands how to avail itself of the past as hardy nourishment. The politics of our time is availent upon of how we ourselves of the past, whether orhardy nourishment, threatening poison. The postmodern intellectuals pronounced their judgment on americas past and have found morally indefensible. Every great achievement of the philosophy, literature, and humanities themselves, came understood as an exploitation of the power. Rather than allowing the past to be viewed in terms of aspiration and accomplishment, it has been judged by failures. The living part of the past is now understood in terms of identityracism and politics. That historical judgment made it side ofy to take the the powerless and made it condemn the exploiters. Political correctness arose as and necessary means of enforcing that historical judgment. In short there, could be no Public Defense of past greatness, which could be allowed to live in the present. Instead, public morality and belic policy would understood in terms of the formerly oppressed. That not a surprise trumps reference to past provoke a ward correctnessiters of the contemporary meaning of intellectualism and been derivedhas from the politics of the recent past but are the very things now in question. In the wake of the 2016 election, the Political Authority of the intellectual leaders of both organized conservatism has been under attack. Separatingeded in parts of the political constituency of both parties organizational and ideological leadership. In the Republican Party alone, caused a civil war between pneumoraws conservative opinion leaders who have opposed trump and their many followers who have embraced him. Surprising that the whole of the washington establishment, liberal and conservative leaders alike, have objected to the manner in which the political discourse from their hand by their legitimacy and appealing directly to the electorate itself. Trump mobilized a political constituency by recognizing a political reality that was still visible to the American People but not the intellectuals or the political establishment. A reality they experienced in their own lives, in their own communities, but it was in opposition to the socially constructed public a selfproclaimed narrative established by and on behalf of the ruling elite. That narrative, which the intellectuals themselves have explicitly distinguished from factual reality, is a product of postmodern thought. It is authorized and legitimatemised by political, social, and economic media elites. Constitutedted what the morally defensible in the political and social world. Although trump has mobilized the has propelledhat him to the forefront of american remains to be seen whether the Political Authority of the people can be restored. Not surprising that many can conserve they anything meaningful from the past, including Constitutional Government itself. Experienced the wholesale destruction of the regime of civil and religious liberty, one that was built upon intellectual and moral tradition that was established a the course of 2,000yearold civilization. It may still be possible to conservative doctrine but it is not unreasonable to ask whether it is possible to ore a traditional conservative life. The intellectual, political, and elites have social utilized Specialized Knowledge derived from the social sciences ground upon which they have succeeded in transforming foundation of Civil Society. The did so by undermining authority, the Traditional Authority of the family, church, and other private or nongovernmental civil associations that made civil and a meaningfulerty reality. Although conservatism was once in its opposition to big government, the rise and calendar consolidation of the hasnistrative state established a purpose for College Educated conservatives as well as liberals. Modern government necessarily unlimited government. It is meant to solve all of the problems of human life. Such an endeavor required scientific or rational control of society as well as the economy. Conservatives and liberals have an important state in in defensf as understood through the professions that establish their authority and status. The new class is privileged by knowledge, regardless of its parties anship. Conservative agenda may liberal one. He but they agree on the primacy of administrative rule. If it is not possible to defend or understand a meaningful way the principles of the american revolution, no conservative defense of constitutional is politically viable. In analyzing modern revolution hannah rentvelli, noted, and i quote, the fact that not only the various the 20th century but all revolution, since the french, have gone wrong, ending oreither restoration tyranny, seems to indicate that even those last means of salvation provided by tradition have become inadequate, end quote. None of those subsequent thelutions could reconcile notion of founding with the defense of any kind of tradition. Destined to consume themselves in the process of founding. Nevertheless, she insisted that attempts,olutionary and i quote, only one, the american revolution, has been successful. Our time, neither liberals provide avatives can meaningful theoretical defense of the revolution. It is now easier politically to the postfrench revolutions that have failed than to defend the one was once thought modernhe only successful revolution. Thank you. [applause] conservatism has a future in america only if conservatives engage in a change of orientation. Is conservatism . I will suggest the definition oft involves two kinds conserving, one, conserving the american nation against violent orhether nonviolent, and two, conserving what is left of american constitutionalism with its orientation towards the common good of all citizens while security and freedom for each. This conservatism would aim at the restoration of the rule of pre1960s sense, equal protection of all classes, punishment of all crimes, no sex or class of the perp or victim. Civilld also protect the rights of all americans, not just the rights of women and minorities come, conservatives of the older type would argue preferences. For conservatives of this kind, the kind im talking about, 1960, to the america of as it was governed outside the welcome ind be comparison to what we have now. My thesis, in other words, im need to go back to the founding for conservatism to genuine. My thesis is that the conservatism in the sense just is mostly gone from American Public life. People who call themselves theyretives often say interested in the declaration of independence, constitution, natural rights and rule of law. They mostly seem unable or unwilling to say or do is necessary to that end. I will give some evidence, ill three contemporary examples in support of that claim and then ill talk a little bit why conservatives today seem no longer able to be sense thate in the im talking about here. Conserving the nation and its constitutional principles requires that the people who live here and who still have attachment to the older america are not replaced by floods of immigrants. In the 1980s and 1990s, many conservatives opposed the influx of people who have no experience of and little desire for democracy, rule of law, religious freedom, freedom publishing,d cultivation of science and respect for the small r virtues of moderation, prudence and care for the common good of the opposed to the private good of ones tribe, family or race. Amy wax called these the, quote, bourgeois norms, unquote, that america largely aspired to up to the 1960s. Conservatives used to take such concerns seriously. Today, not so much. Take paul ryan, the republican widely of the house, viewed as conservative. In a 2016 tweet, he said, quote, in america, everyone has a is written off. Straight from the declaration of independence, that is the republican ideal, unquote. Quoting a founding document sounds like the kind of i just spoke of, restoring the constitution and its principles. What ryan really means by everyone has a place is, everyone in the world who wants to come to america has a place. He makes that clear almost every day but heres a quote from a of his. K quote, put yourself in another persons shoes. If youre in elected office, thats what you have to do. We take different peoples perspectives the gentleman from india waiting for his green waitinge dreamer who is to be given legal status. We take all these different process them we through our values and our morals and our princ