I view today a political system to groups basically the same the same side of the coin. I think we would be better to invest ourselves and invest ourselves of all Political Parties in the united states. I dont elect someone for their views. I dont think they represent me. Nobody in the state of oregon represents me. They represent themselves. I think theres a level of frustration there. Ultimately i disagree. There can be differences in society about how to perceive and govern ourselves. And we have to ask ourselves how do we make decisions. What we head in our country is a system for legitimate sizing those kind of decisionmaking. Allowing people of different views to be heard and for allowing the views of the majority to ultimately be advanced. Is the purpose of the system and very often that is what the system achieves. I think there are going to be contradictions and paradoxes and problems that dont go away and that we cant fully resolve can mitigate them and try to address them we can make the most of them but this world is not a perfect world. And how to live with its imperfections in address problems in ways that respect each other. If the challenge at cap challenge at the core of the government i think parties are an important part of solving that problem and finding ways to represent different views i think our institutions of government the state and federal local level are part of that. The fact that were still dissatisfied at the end of it. There are surely ways we can do better. Lets hear from aubrey in richmond virginia. I am a notorious longterm cspan consumer and i spent a lot of time they said something about the scale and character of discrimination and change. I will agree with that one. He made some reference to George Floyds murder in the reaction to it. What you dont understand is the reaction to his murder is not just the video. Weve been watching videos of rodney king coming forward what we saw this type White Supremacy edits worse. You do white Police Officer murder disabled black man casually while looking into the camera. Then you ask yourself why do you see what you see on the streets today. We have institutional discrimination that goes on every day. And the worst part of it murders aside im talking about in the workplace the people of the everyday. I think the false equivalency you seem to create with the current republican party. We are looking at the evolution with what were looking at now. I came to a head with the meeting. Finish your thought and tell us what it is a number to hang up and let yuval levin respond. Around the time of president obamas first inauguration a plane plan was put together for democrats and republicans not to cooperate at all. That led to the tea party and now we had donald trump republicans who are the ultimate manifestation. Thank you for your thoughts. Yuval levin your thoughts. Obviously i agree entirely with the first part. What we saw was precisely White Supremacy its utterly unacceptable. Both in character and scope. It is perfectly clear that we have a lot of work to do in the country on this front and as central that our politics turn attention to it. As far as characterizing our polarization as a function of Just One Party that strikes me as a symptom of polarization not a diagnosis. I think its simply unquestionable that those parties have moved towards the edges over the last two decades and three decades. There is less of cooperation across cooperation across party lines. Theres no doubt that they were a part of that. We can certainly point to different people who play different roles in that process. The process has been a huge problem for our country. It is oriented to cooperation to compromise not only send dream that were organized agree. Therefore we have to make bargains and deals in politics. Giving each politics. It is not negotiable. It is not a party issue. To be put to the site so can be a fundamental part of human rights. It needs to be front and center. I think we have to find and see that racism is both a function of the attitude of individuals i do think that we have made Real Progress in fighting some of that institutional racism. There is less of it than it was. It does it mean the work can be put down. This is not something that just started on the contrary. A deep and enormous problem that has to be taken up as a fundamental challenge in american life. I think theres no question in which the country has a lot of work before it. Its important to see. We do inspire with those ideals. The aspiration alone is not enough. Gregory in kansas city. How do we ever get there. How did we get to the point where compromise was unacceptable. The attitude seems more common on the right. The politics at the National Level was fought around symbolic issues where each party treats the other one as the biggest problem. If thats the case. The only solution to our problem is to get rid of the other party. Our country has actual practical problems. Whether its equality and racial reconciliation. Whether it is standing in the way of the way of life. Those problems had to be taken up by public policy. I think our political culture has been transformed. It understates and undermines the potential of compromise and accommodation. And look, to say that its been caused by one party is a symptom of the problem. It has been caused by both party. It makes it very difficult for people to take seriously the reality that ultimately it has to be addressed in the same way. Were not going away. The people you disagree with her still going to be here tomorrow. To live together with them as neighbors and fellow citizens. Your watching book tv on cspan two. This is our monthly indepth program this month it is author and scholar yuval levin. We are concentrating on his three most recent books. The fractured republic with the social contract. 2017 and a time to build his most recent from family and community to congress in the campus every committing to our institutions can revive the american dream. Charlie is in Roslyn Heights new york and you are on the air. I want to make two points. I agree when it came to morals in the human heart. We dont value character in our society anymore. I dont know if we ever did. I tell young people is the first thing we should be. And that is not valued in our society. Everything theyre talking about. Also we have a problem in the society that were not mentioning. In communication with the wealth. I think that is controlled. We need to talk to one another. We need good civil debate. Ninety here. There are only two views. We need to get them out in debate and talk to one another. Thats not happening. With the concentration of the media with the wealth i think it has something to do with it. Most of us think that that would be a good idea to hear two points of view. And have a reasonable argument. Et cetera et cetera. I certainly think thats right. Theres all kinds of reasons i have to do with the incentives in the media culture. And when we do have things we call debates they tend to be a little more like people reading talking points and engaged in a screaming match. I think some of that has to do with the assessment of the public attention span. Cspan knows there are people willing to listen actually follow whats happening in the public life and think about it seriously. Are there are some deeper the question of concentration is a complicated question. In the mid century america. You really had three television networks. Two or three national newspaper. That have an enormous cultural power. To the shape the mainstream consensus and things were much more concentrated than they are now we had have a fragmentation of the media because of the internet and other economic pressures where there are many more voices out there now and is often difficult to tell who to trust. And whether they are doing any kind of standards. At the same time there is a greater economic concentration where economic power in the media world is very heavily centered around a few large corporate owners of Media Companies we have Enormous Economic concentration. I think they have to be understand understood in tandem somehow. Break up concentrations is not simply good in itself. It has to be part of a life of free society. They do have to be breaking broken up. The situation is much more complex than that. And were dealing with a fragmentation of voices and the consolidation of ownership. Here is a text this is from Maxwell Rubin of Pacific Palisades california. It opened the day door for me on human nature. And went to make reforms. My question to you is how you can eliminate unhealthy populism from our republic on both the left and right and get the general public to trust career politicians who have the experience and wisdom that they outlined. Thank you very much. Its always nice to hear that book been assigned in college classes. And someone who benefited from that and got something out of it. I think the question of populism which has always been a core question in american political life. And very much alive in our contemporary politics right now. Its one we have to way to think about the institutions. We dont really face a choice. Between the view that the people have all of the answers and should just be empowered directly. The answer that is embodied in the constitutional system is that no one has all the answers. And they have to arrange themselves around the reality that no one has all the answers. That means no one should have all of the power. To exercise power over them and also gives certain kinds of elite cetaceans. They are at some distance from the public. The president is not as directly answerable to the public. We have competing power centers. And layers of power the logic of all that it seems. It begins from the premise that no one knows everything. That being the case the system has to put Different Power Centers together so for change to happen it endures over a long time so that it is sustained long enough so it has a majority in congress. The president will support it. A sentiment that would enable it to injure and be accepted. That means change happen slowly. It is important that they be answerable to the public. And also means that we have to expect there is such thing as expertise in public policy. I dont think the people that create problems in congress are those with the most experience some music and had to have the power and that kind of system and it might as will be people who are answerable to the public. Its a matter of finding balance in our system is pretty good at that on the whole. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to quote kareem abdul jabbar. Until you shine light on it you dont see it. America should take this issue to regain the leadership and deal with it and the rest of the world will follow. My question how we make the do we make the Supreme Court an independent body again mike suggestion is to take away the appointment shipped from the president and for the body to renounce their political dedication in writing. They will announce their political affiliation. There it is. When it comes to the courts we face the same challenges. For a fully independent Supreme Court makes sense if we think they will always make better decisions that our political system. Theres actually a huge practical challenge. And who will decide. I think it reaches a compromise that makes sense. Judges have lifetime tenure. They are appointed. By elected officials. I had been open to the idea that lifetime tenure in the Supreme Court is something that could be rethought. So you dont had justices who are appointed. And you are stuck with whatever you get. If a little bit more of a chance to change the makeup of the court. They still have lifetime tenure as judges. It would only serve at time a time of 18 years. They would get two or three appointments. I think it ought to be considered. When they created lifetime tenure. The balance between independence and accountability is never to be perfect. Good afternoon. I have a question for Mister Levine and i just like to preface it with a comment to lead up to the question. I dont see myself as a republican, democrat or independent. What he just mentioned i believe from what i have seen in Current Events that contempt kinda began in 2000. The democrats feel like they were robbed of the white house by the Supreme Court. It continues all the way into the 2010s with the seat of appointment of obama. They were robbed of that seat there and then it continues on into 2016 where they are robbed of a second seat. They have a proximally 3 million popular votes. In all those instances the constitution is what ruled out not their emotion. Is your characterization beginning in the 2016. They continued with as we know now the illegal warrants at which there were four of them. It morphs into crossfire. There is a lot there. In the robert hearing. They didnt just begin. For other reasons they mentioned. On the question i dont defend Hillary Clintons character either. I dont think we have a good option in the 2016 election. They were both under fbi investigation. The question of character is not a legalistic question about as a question about how the person thinks about the kind of responsibility that he has. I do think there is narcissism at the core of present trumps way of thinking about the world. It leads to a bowling attitude. Some of the attitudes that he has about immigrants and others. Its just not something we should see. About particular scandals and how they get worked out. I think character matters. You can never really get away from it. We ask him or her to list some of the favorite books. The theory of moral sentiments. Tell us about the last two books. In some ways this is a list you might expect from a conservative. Harry johnsons book is a very indepth study of the Lincoln Douglas debates. He was a was a political theorist and philosopher. There is a book that they wrote in 1959 that is a close reading of the Lincoln Douglas debate. In the context of the political thought. And to articulate lincolns way of thinking about morality. Through that it shows the depth of the issues at stake. Its still in print. And while worth your while. I see looking at the list now its the only work of fiction. As a gray is a great english novel. As the pen name of marian evans. I think its the best novel. It was published in 1871. But it set in the 1830s. Its the kind of ethic novel. He gets at some hugely important issues of family and community the status of women. Of how social change happens. Its just a great gripping story. I was introduced to it by amy katz. I think it is really that. It is a wonderful book. He is currently reading Robert Putnams the up swing. The year of our lord 1943. It is the next book. They are known with bullying alone. It described the breakdown of the american civic institutions. And the rise of loneliness. As the century dawns one of the great social observers of american life. It was supposed to be out this summer. It has been delayed a little bit to the fall. It actually looks at a subject we took up earlier. The pattern of communitarianism and individualism in the course of the past century. It shows a coming together and then a pulling apart. Also immigration and cultural diversity. Also economic inequality. And the conditions of many of our institutions. You find it was intensely individualistic. Immobilized in the direction of solidarity in the middle of the 20th century and then began to pull apart. And now were at another extreme. Its good to be a very important book. It will be out in a few months i guess. Alan jacobs has written some wonderful books. About the intersection of intellectual life and theology. This book the year of our lord. Is about a group of thinkers in the final years of the second world war. Who tried to envision or imagine what the post postwar would look like. Has it held up. I think it and to get met with some criticism at the time which i think in some ways it was right. Part of what it described as the demise of American Civic Life was actually more like the evolution of American Civic Life. So that the old clubs in civic organizations definitely did get weaker. The country is headed in the direction of isolation and dangerous access to individualism was right. The problem became worse over time with Political Polarization and the growth of technology can bring us together. They do us dash they do that by keeping us apart. Many of the trends have in fact not been shown to be right but have gotten worse over time. A little less than half an hour left. If you live in the east and central time zones. And want to participate in the conversations. For you in the mountain and specific time zones. Thank you for having me on. And enjoy the conversation here. I have a few observations and then a basic question. We are a nation of the readers. And compromise is essential in order to arrive at our solutions to our problems i would also like to interject that a gentleman who wrote a book unpopular as is him said that politics i thoroughly agree with them on that. Although compromise is essential. It has countered to it. It points to the question of what we actually mean. Compromise means getting part of what you want on a practical policy question what most matters for you. There are certainly issues like abortion and others where its very difficult to compromise but we do compromise even on those questions when it comes to practical matters. When we face a choice that is an all or nothing choice. We strive to turn it into something more like a give and take. There are a lot of people on the prolife side. Who would say that it should be determined in the states and it would certainly be a diversity of outcomes. Some much less so. We would certainly had more restrictions than we have now. Almost in the entire world. Practically no constraints whatsoever. Its much more extreme than any european society. A lot of people have very strong views on the moral question and would be open to a more moderate law that allowed for their views to be x acted. Is not giving up on your core principles. The practical questions. It allows you to tell you the difference between gaining ground and losing