this is nearly two hours. >> the topic of this panel is how should we think about american patriotism. our panelists need little to no introduction. they will each speak, and then i will ask a question or two. we will then take questions from all of you. the three speakers will be diana, bbill, and one other. she studied at the university of chicago. she is a co-author of a 2011 book. a book that amy and diane co-authored. she is also accompanied by an excellent website which i recommend to you if you have an interest in understanding america in general. it has wonderful reading and commentary. it is worth looking at. after diana, we will hear from jim. he is a student at leon cath. certainly a friend and influence d by leon. then, we would hear from bill the history professor at the university of oklahoma. bill has written wonderful works on american history, american society. about 20 years ago, it was a very important book. looking at the introductions, i believe both diana and jim spent some time here at the madison center. they also have a connection here. i had forgotten that both diana and jim attended kenyon college. this is the panel with people who attended the smallest colleges. there has never been a panel with more small college representation on it. i do not know what that means but i was struck by that. i was going to make a joke about their sports teams, but i looked online and -- is it still true that the kenyon sports teams are still called the lords and l adies. and st. john's, but with their sports team be called? >> the druids. [laughter] >> without further ado, diana stroud. diana: thank you. i had the very great privilege of working with amy and leon on the anthology "proudly we hailed." we learned so much about american history from our conversations about each piece. conversations that were mostly interpretive but sometimes personal, too. we looked at mm more about the immigrant experience -- we look at a memoir about the immigrant experience which brought a tear to leon's eyes. we also took note of a new brand of pitcher doesn't in the united states, best new brand of patriotism in united -- we also took note of a new brand of patriotism in the united states. it was called reflective patriotism. the american form of public spiritedness is sometimes more rational and sometimes more self interested. indeed, it is what is in the self and not in the soil. the american "understand the influence that his country has on his own." he interest himself in the prosperity of his country. at first, it is as a thing useful to him, and then afterwards as his own work. this more participatory patriotism, because it is aware of individual rights and constitutional order has the possibility of aggrandizing the self. as so often, his largely appreciative evaluation of america's habits has an underside. it turns out that reflective favoritism is also irritable patriotism. quick to be provoked and take offense. the term reflective, which initially seems so flattering does not in fact meet that -- mean that american patriotism is thoughtful but rather that it reflects the american soul. it is the mirror of the democratic soul. americans take faultfinding personally. he complained that the national pride descends to all the us ease of individual vanity. you so innovated by these american patriotism that he burst out saying that there is nothing more annoying than the irritable hatred his of americans. -- durable patriotism of americans. maybe he did not quite have the whole story. it was a hope that we were not just being irritable patriots ourselves, but looking for american sources for a more richer example of reflecting patriotism. it patriotism that is maybe philosophic, something that could balance critique. something that is not reflexively self in grand eyes and or self-critical. -- self aggrandizing or self-critical. american sources that we called upon our something in the subtitle. through works of the literary imagination, authors will hope to conduct a sentimental orchestration of sorts. the introduction stated that the point was to make thoughtful patriots. with the time remaining, i would like to pick up a lesser-known american speech. the lesson on discovery and invention. it is not a speech that happens to appear in our volume, but it was written by our most thoughtful patriot ever, ibrahim lincoln. lincoln's treatment of discovery and inventions is, i think, centrally concerned with a properly grounded patriotism. there are speeches that are less applicable to our current association. we have loveless globalism tribalism, and now resurgent nationalism, but very few thoughtful patriots. i also wanted to feature this particular work by lincoln because it is remarkable cast-like. i am saying that lincoln is cath -eon in the speech. it combines the lessons that we see in leon cath's lessons. he discovers sobering truth about the nature of the human being. the ever apology then informs his analysis of both the potential and trade dangers of science and technology. finally, liberal education is seen as the indispensable means to break what lincoln calls "the slavery of the mind." yes, america is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but only through a certain type of education to individuals become capable of rising to equality. rising to a quality being lincoln's hope-filled praise. also, he gives respectful attention to the wisdom of women. here, i cannot help but mention the providential fact that leon was born on lincoln's birthday. let's providential that leon and amy attempted to name their child abraham lincoln cath. when one of -- when they were gifted with two girls, they named one of them marian. lincoln is set to -- is said to have made tribute to plaintiff songs. marion was the sister of abraham who sung the song's of freedom from egyptian bondage. there are obvious parallels to american slavery. it forms the subtext of lincoln's speech. before hazarding further interpretation, we unfortunately do not have the entire speech. we do have portions of the speech which are thought to be separate efforts. so a first lecture on discovery and invention, and a second lecture on discovery and invention. however, they may be lesser parts of a greater whole. it is also important to mention how this fits into the quite knowledge he of the 1850's. over the two-year period, from early 1858 to early 1860, it was first presented -- presented before the house divided speech where he sketches the contours of the national crisis and accepts the republican nomination for the illinois senate seat. during the same time that he was apparent a book length version -- he was preparing a book length version of his speech with douglas, this speech is representative of the invention of print which helps explain the behavior and effort lincoln put into the publishing process. the medium of print, lincoln says, allows for what to converse with the unborn in all distances of time and space. getting the speech into print meant that lincoln's forensic victory over douglas stood in better chance of never being forgotten. whatever might befall the country. finally, lincoln delivered a lecture one last time. this was before giving his union address which established his presidential consideration for 1850. lincoln saw fit to work on what he thought of as his lecture on man. especially -- apparently this was material that americans needed to ponder in a nonpartisan, wisdom is seeking spirit. as the crisis of the house divided gathered steam. the first lecture, which i take to be the opening section of the speech presents a survey of technological examples as gleaned from the bible. these are no ordinary accounts of human ingenuity. all creation is from mind and every man in minor. he includes himself and the world in his moral and intellectual nature and susceptibilities. these are the infinite variable leads from which man was meant to dig up his destiny. in the beginning, the mind was an open, and man stood naked and unacknowledged. he's the only one that improves his workmanship. he improves by discovery and invention. the first important discovery was the fact that he was naked. his first invention was the fig leaf apron. from there, without the benefit of an internet search engine, lincoln traces the biblical evidence of human technological process. he goes from clothing to various forces that can explain man's own muscular power, namely animal power, steam power, and more. he quotes bible verses that track such things as the first mention of thread or iron or chariots. he also mentions another double -- doesn't of bible verses without -- he also mentions another dozen bible verses without passage citations. first, two men -- women grinding at the wheel was meant to prove that the waterwheel was often unknown in bible times. the verse refers to the rapture at the second coming of christ. it also details of the time and tribulation of those days. as this last instance more than indicates, this is an on orthodox way -- an unorthodox way to read the bible. this is making the bible serve a purpose which seems altogether alien. matthew 24 is about the weeping and gnashing of teeth and christs''s return in glory. it is not about the creation of hydro power. the natural question is, what the heck is lincoln doing? i would suggest that he is quite aware of what he is doing, and that he specifically chosen these bible verses to tell to stories simultaneously. first, the story of technological process. second, the story of sin slavery, and divine punishment. each human invention that is mentioned is linked to a tale of disobedience and suffering. especially prominent are references to slavery. indeed, the entire semblance of verses could be set around the sojourn of the israelites in egypt. i do not know whether to call this esoteric or not. it seems to me that lincoln once his audience to perceive his double inquiry into technological progress on one hand and moral non-progress on the other. he also provides chapter and verse to those who want to be miners of the written word, contrasting his text with the source text. if you follow his leads you follow another mention of man's destiny. their political destiny. the last topic is steam power. lincoln points out that egyptians understood the principles, because they had a setam -- steam-powered toy yet they never applied it to machinery. certainly, lincoln emphasizes that the ancient world relied on manpower and animal power. while lincoln drops plenty of hints about god's punishment of egypt, his indirect approach has nothing morally fervent about it. the contrast between his rhetoric and that of the abolitionist could not be more dramatic. the abolitionist loved to quote isaiah. lines of terrifying vividness about judgment on the land. "no man shall spare his brother." lincoln mentions isaiah twice but only to cite the trading of ore and creation of sailing ships. when the further reflection turns exclusively to the united states in the second lecture his manner of presentation shifts abruptly to parity. borrowing a slogan, he does an extended secure -- satiric riff on manifest destiny. "you have all heard of young america. he owns a large part of the world by right of possession and all the rest are right of wanting it. as plato had for the immortality of the soul, so young america has a pleasing hope, fond desire and longing after territory. he has a great action for the new --great passion for the new. he is the unquestioned inventor of manifest destiny. his horror is for all that is old. if there is anything old that he can be endorsed, it is old whiskey and old tobacco." after taking this partisan swipe at young american hubris and hypocrisy, he moves to higher ground to question whether young america has an advantage over old fogey. lincoln reminds his audience. they might prefer to forget. not only human beings beholden to natural endowment and immediate fellows, but there are intergenerational debts as well. the current generation is the beneficiary of the advances made by the very old fogies of earlier times. lincoln suggest that humility experiment. it's lincoln's bammers i can -- obamaesque you didn't build that moment. still, there is a modern difference in improvements achingly slow until the invention of printing. which lincoln called the other half and in real utility the better half of writing. relation between writing and printing seem to be like the relation between adam and his better half eve. printing is the invention like our constitution. it awakens human beings the thought of rising to equality. printing is the emancipation proclamation of the mind. the final section of the speech pursues this question of modern mod spear orty. in the midst of this account lincoln stopped suddenly and says, though not absent to my present purpose, it is justice to the fruitfulness of that period to mention two other important events the lutheran reformation of 1517 and the invention of negroes. once girn the oddity of lincoln procedure is striking. he drops in that phrase the invention of negroes. then resumes his consideration of printing. what do we think now of the contrast between the ancients and moderates. we learned of the slave holding egyptians who never realized the power. in the second lecture we get the full steam ahead of americans who have unleashed the energies of man and yet who have also con drived to turn other men into inventions. lincoln has mentioned five modern events that together provide a genealogy of the crisis of the house divided. the two inventions of pressure the conflict. the invention of printing in 1436 the invention of negroes in 1434 created slavery. provided the ground on which both freedom and slavery converged. the reparation added political liberty. patent law in 1624 like discovery of america double edged or ambiguous. if the negro is an invention the invention can be patented which is essentially what happened when the royal african company was granted exclusive rights to the slave trade in the 17th century. when the cotton engine cotton gin was invented. we might just say that lincoln's entire public career was devoted to gifts inventing the negro or disinventing present mode of using him. in conclusion, let me just point out that the lecture on discovery and inventions, forms a piece with lincoln's first lecture delivered 20 years earlier. there lincoln diagnosed threats of political institution. he remain within a constitutional perspective. to install the advent of demagogue who might exploit popular dissatisfaction. by 1858 it was clear that americans had not listen. facing the collapse of constitutionalism. lincoln deeps the inquiry by offering this reflection man ancient and modern as a way to remind americans of the great difference between self-aggrandizement and self-government. he takes a political slogan of his day, young america, and reworks the concept to instill national humility and national hope. our politics of course, regularly throws up new slogans like make america great again. had we young lincoln among us, he might deliver a dress exploring where the true greatness of america lies. absent that, we have plenty of old together -- fogies who can happy. it depends on the capacity to read which is to say it depends on education, both civic and liberal. at the top of my reading list, our abraham lincoln and leon cast or that combination i think of as abraham lincoln cast. [applause] >> thank you diane in for that speech now james ceaser. >> thank you. patriotism has it is experienced first by most americans is a sentiments of deep attachment for the nation. it's something akin to love. it's something felt coming from the heart and it surges at a certain moment in response faced with symbol like the jet planes that screened past the opening of the super bowl. or the sight of the flag in the breeze or through music that which is the star spangled banner or god bless america or proud to be an american. patriotismisis connected with feelings for those in the military and their sacrifices by the encounter with the monuments of the soldier of iwo jima. of time spent with friends and family on july 4th. simple familiarity being together and being free together. no one, i think, really encounters patriotism unless he is experienced these moments of connection and attachment. patriotism may need a lot more than than this. see speaks of of traditional patriotism. but then he adds, there must be in the modern world, a rational connection as well. based on calculation and interest. well properly understood. patriotism must do something for us, and pay off in some way. there's no doubt truth to this. but it don't erase or wipe out of kind of attachment that is response of the heart before it is measured coally and rational -- coldly and rationally by the head. of course not everyone in america is touched by this feeling of patriotism. drunk driverthere are today ideas of doctrine that pro claims quality patriotism. in propose something different. there's a doctrine of multiculturalism that preaches connection to different unit in place of country. one's race or ethnicity. then there's the doctrine of globalism or humanity. which makes a connection to all rather than to anything particular. these ideas or doctrines work directly against patriotism. they are active inside the world of ideas. moreover the world is experienced differently by a certain percentage of people today who communicate more easily cross border who travel more who make their living in firms that are international. who see the world major problems and challenges such as climate change as being well beyond the scope of the nation. who think that a patriotic disposition is hostile to the solution to these problems. these people believe in the world purse not america first. these people are not settled. locate themselves mentally. fortified by these ideas and doctrines, they are altering the character of education in america today. eliminating a distinctly american story situationing in a context that would make patriotism a form of education even early years for the young and intellectual achievement. to people of this anti-patriotic disposition and attachment to country is viewed not only old but dangerous and irrelevant. there's always the question, of course of what american patriotism means beyond the emotional attachment by which it is first experienced. patriotism must consist of something. it must at some level of analysis have a content to it. a content that some have thought about and tried to articulate. thus thinking people insist that one cannot pull blindly to the create my country right or wrong. if the country is wrong fundamentally, it should not be loved. but what makes it wrong fundamentally wrong that it cannot be loved? it seems today that for many, the root is falling and the floor is rising. fundamentally wrong is the other party and what it stands for or what we call extreme polarization. for some of this, the wrong fundamentally wrong is the republican party. hollywood intellectual promise to leave america and go elsewhere to canada and costa rica in the winter. others like barbara streisand promised to leave if donald trump is elected. she has pivoted. on the right, few if any threaten to exit. where would they go? sweden? [laughter] but some have likened the victory of the other party to flight 93. implication here is one could not love america. the memory of america perhaps but not america itself. had mrs. clinton been collected. sulking around in america until they were out populated. one wonders whether these people on both sides, left and right have lost all perspective. whether patriotism can survive this kind of partisanship. many trying to bring the discussion of patriotism into our present day. trying make it germane to the problems that we are facing today. it must be admitted against the doctrines of the globalist that i mentioned earlier. that reactions of some has kind of set in favoring a return of the importance of the nation in the world. this is taking place not only in the united states but in parts of europe as well. some see it as healthy while others worry that it represents companycompany -- xenophobia or extreme nationalism. very strange intellectual effort has developed. with patriotism being good and nationalism bad. some of the patriots of the national review having filled with this idea over the last half year. patriotism in this intellectual exercise means attachment to america or its true ground. which is love of the university principle. all men are created equal. america will be open to admitting citizenship. any kind of person without guard to previous ethnicity race, nationality, religion, and the like. nationalism by contrast, limits membership in a country to something like originally belonging to a group and these and only these are allowed to be citizen. this is said to be bad. of course, this is true american places, america and places like france are openly to all. other places like japan are not. you have to be japanese to be japanese. pretty much in fact. but the idea of good and bad attached to this different is strange. i would say that there are different nationalisms and nationalism has had many instances of xenophobia true. but nationalism was also the source of democracy, opposition to communism. who can forget lithuania or polish nationalism part of resistance to supposedly open or purpose driven soviet union. for america, our open principles to all as citizens by no means meant historically that citizenship cannot or should not be limited in fact, by other considerations. america was once in practice pretty much a christian nation and committed to remaining so. over time, you really never can go back in america, it widen or broaden to become biblical or judo christian nation. it remains however, for the nation at any point in time to decide the shape or character of its future citizenry. according to whatever principles or ideas it holds, be it number type adaptability to simulation religion or prejudice. thank you. [applause] thank you jim. >> good morning. i'm honored to be part of this celebration of leon cast. worthy life and worthy work. i have to say that this is a unique kind of academic gathering. it's with feeling of gratitude and warth. i'm unaccustomed to this. ceaser can stir things up a little bit. i was not leon cast's student. at least not in the classroom. i do remember him though from my student days at st. john. he was a very young tutor. seems barely older than the students. i have an image leon in the coffee shop at st. johns. which still is sort of focal point of the social intellectual life the community. he already had a following of being 23 years old or whatever it was. he looked 23 years old. he was a curiosity. here was this medical researcher trained by a chemist. he was teaching aristotle of the soul. what gives. what was going on there? i wanted to take that as my starting place. i know my assigned topic is patriotism. i will get there. i want to approach the topic from a broad perspective and then circle back to patriotism. there's a number of unifying themes in leon's work. we touch on some of them in the previous sessions. i want to concentrate on one which i will call various, the recovery of nature. or the vindication of nature or perhaps the rediscovery of nature. what i'm trying to get at with these inadequate titles is leon's effort to adapt and reappropriate aristotles insights into nature. it's a nature. the word nature. something normative rather than descriptive. something inherently purposeful and meaningful. source of authority. something that in every minuted particular contains principles and integrated understanding of nature that includes the physical and the human in seamless web. a web that does nothing in vain. why would a trained american scientist want to do this? why would we want to traffic outdated idea? because they might not be entirely outdated. because they might contain truth. we've allowed ourselves to forget to our detriment. leon reached back to battle aristotle understanding of nature sense the insufficiencies of a minority who thought to supersede him by understanding of purposeless nature that exists only to be molded and mastered by our sovereign will. his book, toward a more natural scientist, it contains the kind of pawn. the idea bringing back together the two senses of nature. understood in two different ways. one of them modern but one of them and she want. we know that leon was aware from early on of the insufficiency of modern sciencing, organic life as a products of endless mechanisms endless in both senses of the word. having no intelligence or purposeful end behind them, no goal. of this understanding is not an exaggeration to say that everything is done in vain. the claim is made misunderstanding of nature is liberate. but this is a false understanding of freedom. not unlike the one announcing this conference. we cannot find meaningful freedom apart from a large structures of meaning in nature and in culture into which we are born. leon careful attention to aristotle has been part of larger project. which is involved putting into dialogue. ultimately seeking a kind of reconciliation between two dramatically different ways of understanding and experiencing the world. one, the understanding of material processes and mechanisms that modern natural sciences brought. but two the universe of human subjectivity. of culture, enchantment and longing. the live world. the universe of the human soul. both of these ways of understanding exist and both are true. but how can that be so? certainly aristotle law of contradiction may cause us to wonder. leon is a great lover of concept of the word, conversation as well as the thing itself. conversation is a beautiful way of understanding the interplay between dissprit world that is stock and trade. a conversation between competing truths this neither yield to one another. world that is conversation is like all good conversation. that continue to respectfully engage question, probe search converse. we don't have to choose final sides in this conversation. it has a wide and shifting cast of protagonist. different pairs. athens and judaism the ancients enat moderns. the laboratory and the seminar room. the universal and the particular. the cosmos and the home. that finally circles us back to patriotism. ideals and sentiments it features of the good life. first point, there is a naturalness of patriotism. as love one's own gratitude for that which one has been given. reverence for one's being. it's visceral. it's grounded in our nature in the brut fact of our natality. many meanings in aristotle's notion of man is a political animal. surely one of them is. we're made to live in community with one another. we are belonging creatures and of the needs of the human soul, one of the prime ones is the sense of membership. of joy and what we have and live and hold in common with others. so much of the thrust of modern political and social thought has been pointed in the opposite direction. here i paint with a rather broad brush. you'll see why. we see this opposite thrust viver -- vividly in freud civilization. it's rest upon a suppression even kind of -- we endure life and society. we were not made for it. you see this in the libertarian strain of liberalism. which seems to individual as prior. capable of standing free and alone. able to choose the terms which it makes common cause with others. we have culture heroes. like walt whitman singing the song of the open road. sounding his -- you see it in conceptions of politics and economics and emphasize competition and the organization society into ass assist the force. in our own battered but still magnificent constitution. with systematic distrust of all concentrational power and low solid assumption about human nature. as that last example implies this view of things that we are selfish creatures and there's inherent uneasiness and unnaturallist in our lives together captures some of the truth about human beings. but not all of it. for one of the deepest of our longing is the desire to belong. we achieve no stable identity in isolation. only a monster doesn't care at all what others think of him. no city can lone survive in the absence of civic virtue. virtue for aristotle was a kind of natural excellence but required striving. it was as much prescriptive and aspirational. it inspired to a kind of transcendence. we must not follow those who advise us to think of human things and being mortal of mortal things. but must so far we can't make ourselves immortal. straining every nerve to live with the best things in us. much more in power and in words does it surpass everything. this would seem too to be each man himself. since it is the authoritative part of him. it would be strange he would choose not the life of himself but that of something else. it's an element of self-overcoming in this understanding of virtue. patriotism rightly understood is also aspirational in character. it is utterly natural sentiment who claim on our souls that we deny. it is up to us to refine it and elevate it if it is to be avenue by which we strive to live in accordance with the best things in us. it's the inherent difficulty of expressing the things that are the core of our american civilization. by this i mean not just that we've lost the ability to think about such matters, that's true. but that the matters themselves are inherently complex. let me give one small example from the not so recent past. some of you my recall. the controversy erupted over the decision of the u.s. government in the wake of 9/11 to develop something called the department of homeland security. that word homeland caused a fuss at the time. people said, homeland. that's not an american word. homeland is a tutonic word. but extended that homeliness to blood and soil nationalism. there was a commotion. it raised an important issue. serious issue. americans attempt is attachment is not to a geographic. but to a community around universal civic idea of freedom. in other words, in this view america is not a country in the usual sense but rather the embodiment of a set of ideas. a nation held together and dedicated to a set of propositions. slogan version of this is a creed rather than a culture. these ideas are deemed to having universal encompassing quality. so defense of the united states is not nearly the protection of a high mark of a particular society but particular regime and particular history with a particular real estate. small wonder that the united states has for so much of its history been so welcoming to immigrants. one is in this view made in america, not so much by birth but by process of agreeing to consciously appropriate the ideals that make america what it is. the use of the term homeland seem to those critics to be a betrayal of this core meaning. the openness at the heart of the american experiment. deeper grounds for this objection already been put forward by the late great political scientist walter burns in his book "making patriots" which appeared in 2001 but before the terrorist attacks. burns' dismissed. he was goodies missing things. he dismissed the idea that american used the idea of fatherland. 94 he it's not that it is their home. but the fact it stands for universal ideals. what makes us one people is not where we were born but rather our attachment to those principles of government. all men are created equal and they are equally endowed. and the purpose of government is for to secure these rights. this was to be done because according to those principles, it had to be done only with the consent of the government. those last words lock in and liberal to their core are suggesting in some respects very different thinker. which describes subject as a grand solidarity who's very existence is in everyday site. ever renewed voluntary rededication to communal life. there's no doubt that on some level walter burns was and is right. in stressing that the strong sense of american universalism is a key element in the make up of american national self-consciousness. but it's not the only evidence. earnest did not say nation is nothing but a plebsite. a nation was a soul. a spiritual principle constituted not only by present day but by the residue of the past. the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories, jim alluded to this. which form in the citizen the will to perpetuate the value of heritage one has received. let me quote at some length from him. the nation, like the individual, is a culmination of a long path of endeavor sacrifice and devotion. heroic past, great men, glory by which i understand genuine glory. this is the social capital. he uses that term. upon which one bases a national idea. to have common glories in the past and have a common will in the present. to perform great deeds together to wish to perform still more these are the essential conditions for being a people. a nation is therefore large scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifice. that one has made in the past. of those that one is prepared to make in the future. interesting. sacrifices of the past by one self and others is so centrally important. the balance of the past is indispensible of american natural identity. it forms a strain in our patriotism that for a less articulate. it conflicts with assertions of american universalism to some extent. it's intellectual is less well edefined. as particular force. our nation's particular triumphs and sacrifices and suffers. draw and hold us together because they are the sacrifices and suffering. not of all humanity but of us. as i mentioned before this aspect of american patriotism is not well articulated particularly in academic settings where it must face a disdain even more deeply rooted than the incest taboo. [laughter] one may have better luck as the casts diana did with popular culture, with fiction and with song and other kinds of public properties which one can find these aspects of american patriotism expressed with great directness and vivid. first item in the book "a man without a country." a parable. consider also those who have read that story, consider the words of the economical american patriotism songs. the sense of home and particularlity are ever present. the star spangled banner speak not only the universal right of man but of the flag. it recounts a very particular story a moment of national perseverance in a time of war and hardship. america the beautiful mingles in invocations of the american land with memories of military and religious heroes of the past and calls virtue and brotherhood. surely no one can have failed to notice that there's little else inches of the land and echoes high mark in irvin berlin, god bless america. land that i love. my home sweet home. which as you recall, enjoyed a huge surge of popularity in the wake of 9/11. that the composure of this song was a man born in russia under the name israel balllean is ironic and entirely appropriate. even immigrants, especially immigrants, could participate in the sense of america as a home. a place where they could be born again. there is a tension in the make up of american patriotism. attention between ideals and particularizing sentiments with latter on memory rooted in tradition and the land. yet another conversation. this tension especially pronounced in america but it's not unique to it. one finds earlier version merging in the debates of reached price. despite their late 18th century highly relevant to the american situation. then and now. price was a liberal and clergyman. greatly admired germany. offered his discourse on the love of our country as a sermon delivered in london in 1789. that sounds bad already. it puts forward a strikingly rational and protocosmopolitan view of patriotsism. patriotism was a form of blindness to give way to more extensive interest. good citizenship consider themselves more citizens of the world and members of any particular community. the king was no more than the first servant of the public created by it and responsible to it. hence the british people like the french who just beginning revolution price regarded with wonder. the right to overthrow their monarch as they saw fit. berk published reflections in france the following year. rebuttal to price's sermon. in place of price's rationalism berk stressed importance of reverence. the wisdom of tradition. in place of universalism and cosmopolitanism. all their particularlity and. in place of society benefit on the myth of the social contract berk invoked the forgiveness of authority and contract of eternal society. nearly always better guides to action than abstract reason, because he's said, the individual is foolish. clearly the subsequent history of the united states follow neither price nor berk. it has been the genius of american patriotism. i would argue define of way for them to coexist. therefore, valuable to be drawn on -- available to be drawn on on this rich phenomenon of american patriotism. you might say that they're in conversation with one another. abraham lincoln, i had to mention abraham lincoln everybody else did, he showed instinctive understanding of this in the first inaugural in the famous closing in which pleading against the rising tide of the succession. he stressed his hope in one of the great run-on extensions in -- sentences in the english language. the mystic court of memory stretching from every battlefield and heart overall this broad land will yet swell the chorus of the stretching from union. he could run on a lot longer for my sake. one thing i want to point out about this, there's a dignified mingling with the national. the public with the private in these words. those mystic chords the musical image. not only from the earth fallen heroes fallen patriots but also from the heart of living individuals and the living family. that word hard stuff is inspires. it invokes whole university, local and in particular loyalties that are the stuff of ordinary human life. lincoln presumed it by sounding the notes of the local one could also reinvigorate the course of the national. of course, i have to note the inconvenient fact by training. this speech failed to avert the civil war. minor detail. [laughter] it was not acceptable to a faction that violently disagreed with lincoln's understanding of the relation between the particular and the national. we can rescue something from even this fact. it demonstrates, in mixed phenomenon is not easy or unproblematic. it's in need of constant adjustment. it may not be universally applicable. so much of the best european writers on patriotism often miss the essentially mixed character of patriotism in america. george orwell notes on nationalism. which i think the national review writers have picked up on makes a memorable distinction between the local affections of patriotism and the more generalized and ideological of nationalism which he disparaged. there's a lot to be said for orwell's priority. burke would approve of them thoroughly. the problem is his understanding does not quite fit the american instance. we're kind of rough principle for lack of a better term, federaltive principle has involved. encouraged smaller loyalty to feed into and support larger ones. in america patriotism and nationalism are not inevitably immortal conflict. they are sometimes and often intention. that has been one of the great american achievements. both politically and socially and culturally too. to provide a setting that can comprehend and support the naturally multiple loyalties of the human person. not requiring its inhabitants to choose between and among them unless it's absolutely necessary to do so. america is not required to yield its loyalty to his locality or his family or his state or his religion. or his ethnic group or his race or to be an american. he's no less an american for declining to do so. those are my thought about how to think about patriotism. how to solve the problem of its continuation in our own time. it's something i leave for the question and answer period. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. these were all excellent. maybe i can ask a question of diana and question of bill and jim. question diana is more of -- question of jim and bill, trouble making question just in the spirit of not letting gratitude overwhelm everything. gratitude, reference and niceness overwhelm everything. for diana -- >> it's going to be nice to me. >> yes. this more of of question. it's so wonderful to learn about the speech of lincoln. didn't know it all. it's worthy of looking at again and reading carefully. you discussed them and quote lincoln critique of invention. with the speeches call, undiscovery -- discovery would seem to be contrast invention discovery would be more ancient and invention more moderate >> not exactly. the first one is he had to discover he was naked before he could invent witheve's help to invent the figure leaf apron. discoveries are prior to inventions and discovery is part of what would lead you to that stand of humility. >> it's not contrast of spirit of discovery? >> i don't think so. >> that was just a lincoln question. >> immortality versus territory. he had a longing -- >> which is sort of understanding i would say. >> i really do think his speech is the coral of ancients and moderates. >> i want to get to jim, thank you diana, you can weigh in also on the bill and jim. on the the patriotism and nationalism thing. it's a healthy tension mixing of universalism and particularism. push a little on the walter burns side. how easy that mixing it and how it's greater and the ability to mix a little less. on jim, you mentioned naturalism, healthy nationalism a took on the soviet union which i think it's true. it's moving when you hear people from poland talk about czech republic. talking about rising up the restore. dignity of their nationality against that the soviet umpire. historical matter, visit of the pope that was so crucial. the presence of the polish pope and it was so crucial to the one aspect of the soviet umpire. which is universalistic challenge the soviet union. not simplal naturalist one. the other thing appears to be helping, kind of modern cosmopolitanism. type of liberalism really. this is what brought down the soviet union catholicism. not so much nationalism. at the end of the universalism is much stronger as part of patriotism than nationalism. the kind of attachment to the history or to so the memory. that serves my question for bill. the mystic chords of memory don't work. it can be distorted a lot. justified pretty bad sort of regime in the south for century based on a wonderfully mystic and moving and romantic sentimental act of account of lost cause. probably for reasons of reconciliation and maybe it was the right thing to do. there were trade offs to be made. but the end of that first first -- more towards the universalist side of american patriotism rather than the particular side. those are questions for you. >> thanks bill. i'll remember this. i defer because my junior status. what i would say, i hope this is responsive, i think just as patriotism can be malignant under certain circumstances, it is not always malignant. it is a natural visceral as jim might said of impulse that is denied -- can't be denied without consequence. but it can be distorted. it can be unrefined and unreflecteddive. it cannot ripen to the kind of virtue that we want to see it be. i think the same thing is true cosmopolitanism. there's a cosmopolitanism -- there's a cosmopolitanism that's willing to yield particular loyalties. in the face of a larger kind of challenge or command. there's the kind of cosmopolitanism that has nothing to set aside by way of particular loyalty. particular loyalties are essential. the cosmopolitanism rises above them at times for better things. it is admiral. i don't think there's -- cosmopolitanism always good, patriotism always bad. i think that's shallow. unfortunately, i think there's an assumption that a lot of us in higher education make and primary secondary education too. that the visceral aspect of patriotism they got that somewhere along the line. so that our role is to be a kind of counter force critical engagement with these given ideas. these visceral ideas. that our students do not have anymore. what they have pounded in them since the second grade is that we've done terrible things in this country. terrible things. unprecedented things. this is the kind of thing that's part of the way their propaganda propagandize. they can reflect on critically and build upon and improve in the course of their lives. you can't improve on a merge that you refuse to inherit. >> just briefly. i think we have a universalistic colored to our -- chord to our idea of country. it doesn't mean that we don't have also particular means of pursuing these goals. something people make the error i think in assuming because the goals universalistic, therefore the means have to be wholly universalistic. it's not true either from our origins, going back to the federalist papers, which articulates the nation which has certain character, language point of view, religion. thought of as being certain kind of nation. this has been the case throughout the people debated what sort of people we want to be at the same time supporting universalistic values. those two things aren't opposed. they are different aspects. many today take the view because we're you'll universalistic in our proclamation, we have to respect every element of universalism. united states is only the united states that's open to people of every religion. maybe so, maybe not. it's only going to be universalistic if we have open borders. maybe so and maybe not. all of these are open to our prudence to decide. we are not obliged universalistic in who we admit or who we do not admit. we are obliged universalistic someones is here becomes a citizen, they are fully a citizen regardless of their background. that doesn't mean they should determine our immigration policy or any such thing. >> you want to correct him? >> i want to second what you were pushing on a little bit. namely the priority of the principle. i really love what you did with the attention to american patriotism and yield of conversation that might yieldal kind of compound and federaltive possibility that you mentioned. one anything i think is unique is that in america, the cultural element when it's at its best, it develops around the creed. you can see it in a completely unique phenomenon. tourism. american goes to colonial williamsburg. we have civil war reenactors. the new museum of the american revolution is the new museum of the american revolution is actually nothing like the museum of the french revolution in paris. this is just absolutely unique, and you can see it with our symbols as well, and i think the anthology tried to draw attention to these things. we have a land-based songs like "america the beautiful" and "god bless america," but the anthony's flag-based. it is symbolism. and that kind of symbolism is important in an ideationall y-based regime. there are unique elements in the way the culture and. around the regime. >> the way it forms into a larger sense of american pluralism -- not yielding your religion or your racial or ethnic identity, that sort of thing, is a part of what is unique about us. i would say that yes, the creed operates -- an italian-american is not an italian. but then again, and italian-american is not a wasp or other kind of american. there is an interplay between the things that hold us together, the things that we have to agree to come and pluralism that we nevertheless maintained. it is one thing if you can make a concept of multiculturalism intelligible. pluralism assumes a kind of creedal unum we are talking about and presumes assimilation. some degree of assimilation to the general culture is sine qua non for there to be pluralism. >> questions comments? sir, down here, yeah. >> thank you. excellent panel. the other day on national public radio, and i apologize -- [laughter] just kidding. there was advertising by the university of maryland that we are building global citizens at the university of maryland. i wanted to write the president of the university and ask exactly what that was. what exactly is going on with this particular generation? is it the internet, is it climate change? >> its climate change. [laughter] >> i was trying to -- what is it -- i guess it is a rejection of american citizenship to say you are a global citizen? what is going on in that kind of advertisement from a university? >> nyu started this -- there's a wonderful book about the issue of sovereignty, in which he reproduces an ad that i think the business school at nyu had with students in front of a building looking quizzically asking the question, to what do i pledge allegiance? that is even more ominous sounding. there are several things operating. one is that the work globalism is a pixie dust kind of word now that schools sprinkle on everything trying to attract students come just like study abroad. there is also the fact that universities recruit heavily from abroad now. it is a real issue, and we could have a whole conference about how higher education maintains the notion of patriotic education in the face of an internationalized student body. it is a real challenge to do that. the term "global citizen" is meaningless. there is no global policy -- there is no "we the e arthlings" constitution out there. it is a chimerica. >> i will be slightly pro-cosmopolitan lives -- president obama used it in berlin in 2008. it turns that when you google this and it goes back further than one would think that has respectable origins in american thought and liberal thought. universities do take a lot of students from abroad and it is not a particular's question for administrators to ask how they accommodate them, and it is not ridiculous to say that the university is intrinsically cosmopolitan and not nationalist or patriotic. maybe the students and maryland don't want to pay so much -- but that is the glory of the u.s. to be honest, i'm a little less severe on that. of course it's lights into extremely annoying political correctness and has very stupid and foolish policy recommendations which are unwise . but i don't know, there is something healthy about americans thinking of themselves in a certain way -- having universal understanding of what their nation is about and some understanding of his universal significance, which has implications for what we might do in the world and where people might draw their sources of understanding. i don't think conservatives should become the party of american exceptionalism to the degree that we don't learn from non-americans, we don't acknowledge the simple empirical facts that many of the greatest americans either were not born in america or have parents or grandparents who were not born in america. to be totally honest, what would american higher education be like if it hadn't been peopled by immigrants and refugees from not even immigrants come in the 1930's? would any of us be sitting -- most of our teachers, many of our teachers'b teachers were products of that world. i don't know -- i'm sure william james was a fine thinker and a good teacher -- [laughter] but does one really think the harvard, the american wasp of harvard 1920 or university of chicago in 1950 was superior? i'm doubtful of that. and a technological factor globalization and technology and the internet -- one can decry -- it has bad consequences as well as good, but it is not the case that young people today will have the same limits on their horizons, for better or worse. maybe their parents or grandparents had come or more of their grandparents and parents had. one has to think about that in terms of practical policies and recommendations. i think there's a little bit perhaps too much nostalgia for good old days that perhaps weren't so good before the global citizen stuff came up and in america that was not as permitted by influence of the world. how do we annex that infants of policy and actively cultivating patriotism is a question and i would not defend the left's application of americanism in the face of it, but those are things that have to be dealt with and not simply multiculturalists we find annoying. >> that was a reasonable defense of adding a component of global citizenship, but that is not what is being done. global citizenship is an alternative to american citizenship. yesterday leon offered a hopeful message on courtship. i hope the same is true with respect to patriotism, but there is no hope with administrators. they are allergic to the notion of american citizenship. but i think young people very much want to know how they often think about their country and whether they can think well of their country. but they often miss educated and it has led to an alienation of their affections --they have been miseducated and it has led to an alienation of their affections. it seems like you cannot even get them to seriously take the separation of powers until you clear away misconceptions about the founding generation and slavery. you have to begin where they are with a sense of shame that has been inculcated into them, and it is not that you in response engage in some kind of hagiographic whitewash the founders, but you do have to restore to them the sense that these figures were admirable. it is an astonishing thing -- roger taney offered the position that the founders excluded blacks from the foundation. that was defeated on the battlefield and now it is triumphant in our high schools. in a certain way young people embrace it because it is a way of indicating the founders. debtor vindicating the founders. t--vindicating the founders. taney offered it in that spirit could let's just latch onto the view that they do not think like people were human beings. in a way, it is a perverse kind of a vindication of the founders, and they have latched onto it. what you have to do is actually restore the dilemma -- they really did subscribe to the universal principles and, yes, they really did have slavery and kept it for a long time. you have to heighten that dilemma. and then they want to know well , ok, how do they approach that? and then you turn to the text and they can work through it themselves and you see that maybe they struggled valiantly with a very difficult issue. >> one of the greatest statements, of course, the sense of shame or guilt is lincoln's second inaugural, in which she does not exactly -- he takes on the responsibility and doesn't whitewash the founding, so to speak. in the back there? >> i wanted to go back to the idea of the end of the cold war and the question of whether it is nationalism and liberalism. i think that might be a false dichotomy. i'm thinking of the wonderful article, "what is patriotism," and really wanted to raise the question of whether nations are in fact a product of christianity, which tamed tribalism and andrew rosen by siphoning off the intimacy of the tribes so you cannot contest the universalism of liberals and and christianity with the nation. the nation is a kind of tamed regime that participates in the idea that there is a distinction between man-made statutory law and eternal and natural law, and participates, i think in the idea that because there is a distinction between statutory law and internal and natural law, that there has to be a recognition of our ability to belong simultaneously in the institutions that are created by eternal law, natural law, and statutory law, and that participation in the nation and the church and the family are simultaneous, and that all of them have a sovereign claim on us. i would question the distinction between liberalism and catholicism on one hand and a nationalism on the other. i think particularly of czechoslovakia and polish and ukrainian and lithuanian nationalism were actually bred by the christian liberalism of an earlier period. >> that is a very interesting statement, seems convincing to me. does anyone have -- a certain kind of modern nationalism is moderated or guided by both universalist christianity and, i guess, universal liberalism, and maybe the modern nationstate has that character as opposed to the older empire. the catholic church also at times tried to shake empires, so that would be a complicated question. it is a little questionable thinking in that because the nationstates and nationalists were harsh in modern times despite the wonderful moderating edifying elevating that had gone on over centuries five christianity and liberalism. i'm still a little less willing to safely embrace and offer an example of the virtues of the nation-state. also a little less willing to dismiss the virtues of empire which in some ways is more liberal and tolerant -- it can be -- it was at times in european history more tolerant way of governing than the nation-states that preceded it. a better regime just by normal standards that followed in the 20th century. maybe that would be unsustainable. i don't want to end this with nostalgia for the austro-hungarian regime. [laughter] >> a lot of tolerance, you know -- >> nonetheless. here in the front. yes, sir. >> i want to pick up on something -- something that jim mentioned. i wonder what the role of constitutional law might be good citizens and the united states -- with citizens in the united states. in 1873, the supreme court talking about citizens of the united states as the title went to equality and liberty, and we shifted to the due process clause and equal protection. talking about persons, so you get this emphasis on human rights and the status of citizen of the united states as the key status in constitutional law lost in we are contingent circumstances in 1873. -- weird contingent circumstances in 1873. just the role of constitutional law in promoting the concept of american citizenship. >> testing my memory of the slaughterhouse cases. well i would just say in a general manner, in american law everyone becomes a citizen without regard -- once they become a citizen, without regard to their previous status. equally so without all others. there is no a priori view that a citizen has to be a member of a particular religion or anything else. and that question is completely different or very different from the question of who in general do you want to favor of allowing and under what circumstances which to me is up to the nation to decide, based on a whole plethora of criteria. and there can be considerations brought into this , questions of explanations to assimilate, some more inclined to assimilate. safety over the next few generations, who do you feel safe with. perhaps -- probably unlikely, but perhaps preference for certain religious views. politics -- who other people going to vote for in the next election? all these need to be legitimate elements of consideration inside the united states. not all as noble as the rest but some come i think, quite defensible. i guess that when i was making is that we have taken this idea that because we allowed by law and by principle all -- therefore everyone to be that in and has a claim to come in on an equal basis regardless. that does not follow, nor do i believe should follow. lots of reasons for limiting selectively. these are things that people will debate and should debate. they can have different ideas for this. but constituting an american in one way rather than another is a legitimate part of america's decision-making process. >> other comments? citizens persons? >> great discussion. a lot of focus on the relationships between universal principles and different kinds of particularisms. i want to ask about universal principles, especially about how sick or sin they have to be for america to be a healthy society. this gets the immigration and some of the considerations that jim raised, and of course from the consideration of what are they like before they come. the other consideration is how do we assimilate them. the question i am raising actually has to do with the nature of the current american machine, and whether we are capable of assimilating, because to assimilate, you have to have principles to assimilate to. those visible -- the -- those principles, the agreement on it now may be much thinner than it has been at other times in american history. the question is how we respond to that. i'm thinking of a couple of things. one is religion. not just this religion or that religion, but religion versus non-religion. the right of nons is important in america, especially when you contrasted to the declaration and human rights on natural theology, on god. that is a huge issue. another huge issue, i think, in some ways to shout under the rug, is fundamental cultural things like what is the nature of marriage and family. this, i think, is absolutely key or fundamental. throughout human history, the family, the nuclear family come in different forms, has been the foundation for all societies i think we are engaged in an extraordinary experiment that really questions a lot of that traditional understanding of what marriage is and what the family is. i guess, how much is that essential that we have some kind of agreement on those things, when in fact our society is so deeply divided in a red-state, blue-state kind of divine? house they could give universal principles have to be? guess how thick do the universe of us. to be --how thick to the universal principles have to be? to have a society where there can be patriotism and people can be committed to the same universal ideals that makes patriotism really possible? >> i think and will make that the last question and let everybody respond because it is a thought-provoking one. jim, then bill and diana. >> i don't know if i would frame exactly the way you did. i would frame it a little bit differently. assume that the original principles are fairly thin and don't go very far, just assume that. there is still a lot that is important about making a nation that goes beyond those few thin principles that people should have to think about, and that are important for the nation. you mentioned the question of people's backgrounds are such that they don't believe in or don't subscribe to monogamous marriage. maybe they are consistent with the declaration, maybe they're not, i don't know. but there are other things about the good and bad that are extremely important that one would hope the citizenry would take into account and base judgment on whether to allow or encourage or try and exclude people of that nature. there is a whole range of issues it seems to me that the majority -- the country has to decide that are not maybe issues of natural -- first principles of natural law or original principles, but that you relate to the idea of berkshire -- for that to the idea of a virtue. these can be taken into account. you mentioned assimilation. perhaps people have a background that makes it less likely they will be able to assimilate. police they don't believe in marriage in a certain way. you could go on and on. perhaps they have views that will be less in view of what the american stands for than others. all these things can rightly be taken into account in a discussion. i would think that you can find everything inside of the original principles of the declaration. there is other territory that we simply a forgotten about -- either they agree with the declaration and they all come in, or something else and none of them are allowed in. it is a lot more complicated than that. >> i would agree with that. i think in the sense that i think, not to pick on walter burns again, but one of the problems i had with the book was he seems to be arguing that what we need to do is pound these principles into the heads of young people and that would be sufficient to make patriots. it seems to me that there is a whole range of presumptions that undergird the principles. i think jim was arguing this and i agree -- that are so obvious in the context of the 18th century as to not be brought out in the next licit way. but they did -- in an explicit way. but they become less obvious when the notion of the sovereign will of the individual -- the individual can be whatever it declares itself to be on any given occasion -- that this becomes a way of reading the natural rights of endowed by our whatever -- [laughter] into the language of the declaration. but i would add that i think a certain kind of cultural habit -- and if i didn't bring this out clearly, let me do it now -- a habit of memory. the notion that we regard the past as something real, that we are product of it, that we are indebted to those who came before us for also the things, for our liberties, our prosperity etc., and it didn't begin when we were born -- the world didn't begin when we were born. the inability -- this is one of the most deep problems right now -- the inability of teaching and people because they can't focus on anything. the problem of attention is so critical. to get them to read a text, to focus on an issue, to converse all of these things are dying. very difficult to sustain. you cannot sustain a republican society with a deliberative institution if you have people who are not able to do those fundamental things. but if that means thicker principles -- i think it means there is culture as well as creed that has to company the principles. >> diana? >> ok, so we have a massive task of recovery in front of us, both a creedal recovery and cultural recovery, and i agree with that. it can only be done through education and the kind of reawakening education, and asked socrates taught us, you just have to proceed one student at a time. >> i will just say -- [applause] thank you for this really excellent panel, and these were all very thought-provoking and the questions and discussions as well, and the i have to additional virtue of never having mentioned once the name that i have unfortunately -- i'm not going to mention it -- [laughter] that i have not been on any discussion in 18 months that have not mentioned his name. [laughter] [applause] >> president trump heads for europe later this week for a series of meetings with world leaders. he will stop in poland en route to the summit for what is being called the three seas, involving leaders from central europe, the baltic states, and the balkan. then he is heading to germany for the g 20 summit on friday with his first face-to-face meeting with russian president vladimir putin. other leaders attending include chancellor merkel of germany president xi of china, and prime minister abe of japan. tonight on c-span, an interview with conservative father david horowitz on the history of the commonest but it he talks about what he calls the left -- the communist party. he talks about what he calls the left's vision of a perfect world. >> decision of -- this vision of heaven on earth that can be achieved if you get rid of the oppressors, if you just take on the means of production and institute social justice outlaw the pronouns "he" and "she," whatever it is -- if you compare it to this vision of the future, well of course it is wanting. the reason america is wanting is because like every society, it is a reflection of who we are and since we are at a christian college, this is what the first 18 chapters of genesis are about , that the root cause of social problems is us. i mean, we are given a paradise. if you are not religious, treat it as a parable. we are given a paradise much better than socialism or social justice, by the way commit because there was no death, no pain, no suffering. fruit fell from the trees. but in order to enjoy this, you have to forgo knowledge of good and evil. and human beings are prone to evil. the corruption is within us. once you understand that, you are a conservative. [laughter] >> see the entire interview with conservative author david horowitz on the history of the communist party and his views on socialism, conservatism, and liberalism, tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators" -- >> i haven't changed, the things i care about in terms of consumers being first and foremost in our minds when it comes to policy and my interests and serving them. that has not changed. >> mignon clyburn, the longest-serving fcc commissioner and the only democrat on the commission, talks about how the fcc is changing under republican leadership and issues ahead. >> when we go into a direction that might be more philosophical, i believe than practical, we need to ask ourselves, will consumers be protected? under the current paradigm that i see teed up, what i'm hearing in terms of moving back to the days of old, i really don't see where the consumer benefits will derive. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> this week during the july for recess in primetime on c-span, tuesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a debate on technology and privacy, and whether tech companies should be required to disclose customer data. >> some suggest we ought to build the back door in order to allow law enforcement access to