Thank you for having me. Thats a wonderfully brought question to open with and a challenging one. We are living in a moment of crisis, that is hard to deny. Weve been through a string dominated by Public Health crisis. This is the time it makes us wonder us our institutions are going to prove to me. However going to write a challenge like this. I think you get off at the scene is a time of crisis. Because it is a time of testing, is also a time for us to think about what american strengths are pretty what we are gonna as a country and how we government to address numerous problems. See 500 we get here. Yuval thats awfully complicated question. Our country has always tried to strike a balance. Between the dignity and equality and the individual on 100 some form of strength of community and the other. Every free Society Faces that tension. I think our society has in the past, has really emphasize the individual. Emphasized the freedom and defense diversity. That has present enormous advantages and benefits but theres another side to the coin the other side can look sometimes like isolation. It can look like alienation and loneliness. I think we have seen all that in this 21st century. This has been an era that has been marked by some pisces break from 911 in beginning of it to the financial crisis to now, a pandemic read and it forces us to look to the sources of our strengths. In ways that have to and when he would drive us to think about our history and on the undercover should push us to look at the future. Our politics is always good doing. Ever somebody like me to try to work at the intersection of political theory and Public Policy, theory and practice room politics this fully time to think about fundamentals. Look for ways to draw strength from what is been good about our country. To address the problems this long had. See five in your book the fractured republic, you talk about the norm. Have we ever had an arm and what you considered to be the norm in this country. Yuval is a very important question because i think we live in a time that is it Something Like a misperception of the norm read living in the moment that culturally is very dominated by the baby boomers. The generation of people born between 1946 in the early 1960s. These still today, although there often in their 70s and in their 60s the people are running our core institutions and who are chart in charge of our politics. And present donald trump was born 74 years ago this month. In june of 1946. George w. Bush was born in july of 1946 and bill clinton was morning august 1946 and barack obama was born in 1961. Theyre all boomers. In the Life Experience that they have had, has actually been a pretty unusual version of america. In america they came out of the Second World War very unified. You and having achieved something great coming together in globalization breathe country and enormous confidence in its government and institution in big business and big labor and Big Government working together to solve problems. And over the course of the 50 or 60 years, since that kind of height rated we have lived through fragmentation and diversification a lot of it has been good vertically those who been on the origins those who are alienated from a mainstream consensus. But is also meant that we have lost a solidarity is a defined america. A lot of our politics now is defined by the sense of loss about that pretty and defined by it since the era of the baby boomers childhood was the norm and that we have fallen from that. That eric was not the norm. Anytime in the 19th century you would find a divided society with very little confidence in its institution. In dealing with some economic and cultural forces that were very much like what we are saying now. As immigration and industrialization, urbanization. Our country has a lot of resources to draw on. And thinking about how to do with a moment like this. It is important not to misperceive the norm. 1950s, the early 60s, america was a very unusual form of our society we should not simply take it is norm prettiness and was were stuck in that place. Sort of regurgitating with the boomers did when the young. Peter should be the ideal. Speech of no, i dont think so. Deals are not about what one particular moment in history. Our ideals should be about or principles, how we treat each other pretty think our ideals are written in the declaration of independence. The core fundamental beliefs of your all created equal. That our government begins from that premise. But as a result we have some freedom as individuals but we also are a strong united society. Those Core Principles along with the ideals that are laid out as forms of government. Institutional design can lead and provide us with what we need to live through very different kinds of times. And challenges. I think this kind of ideals are what we should look to in a moment like this. Our politics cant be or organize from returning to simple nature. The nitrous off is not as cold and his people think it was. For many of americans, it was very far from that. In any case, history does not go backwards. Question should be, natalie become strong for the future enemy as a conservative, that means reaching to our principles and think how we can apply enduring ideals to changing circumstances. That is where politics should be striving to do. That means coming to terms with the circumstances and understanding of country as it is. And being at home in the summer can happen would be her best self at this time. And not return to some bygone golden age pretty think the left and the regrowth, engage and his nostalgia markedly gets into the way of constructive policy. Peter fractured republic, he came out in 2016. Life in america is always Getting Better and worse at the same time. Liberals and conservatives both frequently and says the path to the america the dreams is easy to see but also that our country was once on the very bath and is been thrown off course by the foolishness or wickedness of those on the other side of the aisle. The brought republic meanwhile, find resulting political debates little evidence of real engagement with contemporary columns and few attractive solutions. Yuval that is a description of my frustration with some of the basic dynamics of canterbury objects. I think it is the end of both parties. There is a way which Republican Party often hears for the social arrangements and cultural arrangements for the 19 and early 60s in the democrats think of the economic arrangements of the time. But the fact is the market changed for from a time for some good reasons. Open Income Opportunities for people who have been at the margins of our society also created options and choices and economic dynamism in ways that we have benefited from and honestly predict elsa came at a cost in thinking how we address that cause, we cannot just think about how we go back to an early social order. The study would conservative does. And the question is finally applied going during ideas to a new situation. I think weve spent too of her time thinking about whose fault it is that we fell from heights further than thinking about how do we prepare for the future. Our politics to have remarkable little to say about the future. We do not talk much about one american is going to need say in 2040. This is just impossibly far away. Twenty years from us is closer to us as the year 2000 and it is exactly what we should be thinking about in our politics. I think there is a need to give ourselves out of the rut of the nostalgia from midcentury america and think as conservative and progressive his and left and right is a market in general but what we want for the future and only now need to be building to get there. Yourself as a conservative. It is coming to you predict speech of a lot of my work has been about that question of what that means with the left right divine in american politics and the politics of a lot of freak societies. Its really about. To me is from isaac premises, almost from an anthropologist would be pretty my conservative schism starts from that human beings are born lessthanperfect. In a form fallen were broken or twisted. And formed before we can be freed. That defamation is done by the court institutions about our society. My family and community and religion. And by education. And ultimately also by politics and culture. And so those institutions that are capable of that formation highly valued and treasured. They should be preserved. It for themselves to be providing generations of people with what they need to be a free society. And because again from the premise that its very difficult to do, that kind of formation is essential and difficult, on concert the institutions that are capable of it. I think people who describe themselves as progressives at their best came from a different premise, from the premise that we are actually born free a lot of people not free and not living up to their potential because of being oppressed by institutions that impose on them and the oppressive status quo. If theres some truth to both of these years. But what you choose to emphasize, runs very deep in your character and sense of what politics is about. The free society does need the boat but it seems to be mailed to monthly the conservative view offers what Society Needs mostly just a sense of how social order and also enables justice. I am conservative. Peter in your most recent book that just came up this year, time to build. Our souls and institutions save each other in an ongoing way when there flourishing, our institutions make us more decent and responsible. But when they are flagging, and degraded, our institutions fail to form us or they do for us to be cynical, selfindulgent or reckless. Reinforcing exactly voices that undermine the free society. Yuval this book is really about the nature of the social prices that we are living through. The previous which unfortunately for, the republic, tries to think in broad terms about the social dynamics, the history that is let us to the polarization that we are living with in our society. This newer book, a time to build, think about the institutional underpinnings for the social crisis we are living through pre the prices that we know to be social crisis. Its about how we connect with each other. That is not how we understand ourselves as individuals to be part of a larger full predict a crisis of alienation of isolation, not only Political Polarization but is not private lives of sin, this version leads people to hopefully always, an enormous increase in suicide rates over recent years. They argue that a lot of that has to do with the weakening of our institutions. And particularly with a sense of on the part of the people within those institutions that the purpose of the institution is not informed them, not to mold them, but it is to serve as a platform for them to stand on be seen and build the following build their own brand. For elevate themselves british i think there has been this time of different mission of the court institution from politics to the professions to the media and academy. I love people south think of the institutions they are part of the existing stuffers for themselves rather than the mold of our character freighted and behavior and some recovery of what it means to be part of an institution to be shaped by the institution pretty think it is very important to the recovery of our society life. He really said very powerfully in politics. Its become so performative in our people plan for congress, basically to get a bigger social media following and to get a better time southern cable news rather than to think about how to work from within the institutions to change a picture for the better. Peter and date you write in a time to build that we have seen a powerful additional source of general election dysfunction pledge takes us deeper towards the core of congresses institutional confusion. Silica, many members of congress have come to understand themselves most fundamentally of players in a larger cultural take a system of the point at which is not legislated or governing further kind of performance that outrage or partisan audience and you specify. You mentioned that gates, republican of florida. In alexandria or cortez. Two people represent this. Yuval i gave examples pretty but i think its much more widespread notes pretty that we have come to a place where we think of our Political Institutions as platforms for cultural performances. As i say, people run from congress to give blue checkmark next to the name on twitter. More than to enact legislation. There are trying to go to predict trying to improve our society with the role of politics in place fundamentally a platform rule. A way to put themselves in a place where they can generally outrage of the voters about the reading they can perform. If they can as outsiders and comment about Congress Rather than insiders and act within congress. And obviously thats been happening in the presidency as well. I think the presence of a physical that more than any present aspirated is a place to perform. In the present to sees himself as an outsider. He spends a lot of time talking about the government. And complaining on twitter about things that the department of justice does rather than understanding himself as the ultimate insider intersystem with the responsibility that is defined by the rule that he place. It ultimately argues that to recover something of a functional institutionalism the we have to teach ask ourselves the question of enough dont ask any more politics. Given my role here, how should i behave in a goes well beyond politics. As a member of congress are present, how should i behave but as an employer and employee as a pastor or a congregant a parent or a neighbor, given that, how should behave here. That is a way of living are institutional roles form and shape the way they behave in society in ways might drive us towards greater responsibility and sense of obligation to another rather than just thinking of ourselves standing alone in a platform and acting out the kind of cultural rage. The logic of social media has overtaken a lot of our core institutions. We think we push back against that pretty. Peter so technology has literal interlace entrant todays political role. It. Yuval yeah a role. Lasers the role we wanted to pretty think the forces here and deeper than technology. Not just at the whim of social media for the internet. We use them in these ways because thats what were looking for. Anything the larger social process that we have been living through, has been a function of the kind of liberalization, diversification. In the america we are talking about before, in the middle of the 20th century, many of the great social forces in the country were telling people be more like everyone else. They were forces of conformity. This sounds districting 20 people. In our times, the same social forces are telling everyone to be yourself. The forces of individual liberation. Theres a lot of good to that predict but it also can tear society apart and i think we can find the balance can push against some of the places where we tend to lean too hard. Right now the means they are covering solidarity and how we think about our society. Peter honoring your book the great debate into her conversation as well. And when to start by reading this quote from it. If the political left and right often seem to represent genuinely big points of view and our national seems almost by design to bring to the surface questions that divide them. And we become a country of the political left and right. Yuval that is really the subject of the book. It is a work on intellectual history. Its a book that begins my dissertation at the university of chicago great and never a developed into a general book. Look at the origins of the left right divide which really different ways is been the subject of my work more broadly than it does that by including through the lens of the late 18th century debate between edinburg and thomas paine. Edmund burke, the great irish born english politician thought to be one of the fathers of modern conservatism. Thomas for an english born American Revolutionary war figure who then became a very important figure in making the case for the french revolution. In revolutionary through and through. And they were engaged with each other. They had an argument about the initial entrant natural social change in encapsulated but over time would become the important distinctions between the left and right in a politics. It begins in summer spices i describe in my view, beginning from a kind of different anthropology. Just about how it is that the human being enters the world and what we will require neural tube driving force to be free. One of these views are always a generally speaking, liberal views. They belong in the free society. They believe in democracy, they believe in individual liberty. They believe in protecting the equal rights. They differ fundamentally but with free society really is because they differ about the nature of the human person. And i think the debate, but had to advance the good. It is still the right way to understand the left right debate in our politics. The left and the right are not actions in the sense that each space it owns good. If the parties him in that they are divided by difference of opinion about what would be good for everyone. For society at large. As of the differences constructive difference i think politics for it can be very ugly and divisive. It is necessary. Its a way of framing and formulating the debates we have but the country stood. I think it still serves at this is a difference between left and right that were evidenced at the end of the 18th centuries. And in many ways are self relevant the part of our politics up with the about pretty. Peter what is your break in front back on that you came to this point of view. Yuval white background. Hyman an internet. My family came to the u. S. And i was eight years old so i grew up here. I new jersey. College in washington dc. The American University and worked on having a some and went to graduate school at the university of chicago. Thinking back to work in the bush administration. First, at the department of health and Human Services and then the bush white house. As a policy staffer in president george w. Bushs second term. And then went into the think tank world where my work is really meant at the intersection of my Academic Book was about, political theory and philosophy more my work in Public Policy husband about pretty which is been about political parties. Now im a s