Separation of powers. So of what we identify with the american way of government and roots it in the tradition of political philosophy in a way very unusual and very illuminating. And harvey connects these over and over again with the spirit American Life and the American National character. One obvious guide for doing that kind of thing is, of course, alexis de tocqueville and has made tocqueville one of his foremost objects, maybe most notably in the fantastic translation of democracy in that he undertook, with his late wife, gilbert winthrop, in the superb to that translation, which really stands on its own as a kind of interpretive essay on tocqueville and in a lot of subsequent writing about tocqueville in america in this century, in the that opening essay to the translation army describes democracy in america as at once the best book ever written on democracy and the best ever written on america. Very high praise and our task in this panel is maybe to pass that just a little think through what harveys work on, not just on tocqueville, but also on tocqueville might teach us about book, about both democracy and our country. And weve got three really ideal guides that challenge. Peter is the ted and diane taube, senior fellow at the hoover at stanford. He served as the director, the state departments policy planning staff, the last administration and a senior advisor, the secretary of state. Hes a scholar of Constitutional Government, of conservatism and progressivism, liberal education, many other subjects. He serves also as the director studies at the Public Interest fellowship in washington. Brian garston, professor of Political Science and humanities and the chair of the humanities program, yale university. Hes the author saving persuasion a defense of, rhetoric and judgment and many other great on political rhetoric and deliberation, the meaning of democracy and a lot more. Charles kesler is a distinguished professor of government at Claremont Mckenna college, as well as a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute editor of the claremont review of books and the author of many great books about, political philosophy, the american founding constitutionalism and many of the subjects that well take up. Were going to proceed alphabetically because tocqueville tells us americans always want appear to be fair to one another and we will begin with peter. And he. Thanks you both. Thanks to American Enterprise institute. Thanks to foundation for Constitutional Government government. In 1990, when i arrived, harvards department of government as a young assistant professor, i arrived then as a young assistant professor. Harvey was kind to invite me to teach 1060 and 1061 the sequence and harveys manner of teaching it furnished fitting agenda for a lifetime of learning. Now ive got ten, six years offered during the fall semester. It introduces classical and medieval political philosophy. Its followed by 1061 in the spring. Suffice semester that deals with modern political. Machiavelli. Two nature i was a beginner. Harvey was a master despite. The vast gaps in, our experience, our learning accomplishments. He me to the enterprise as a full partner. As you know, such of spirit is rare, especially so the academy, where professors and administrators endlessly the diversity, the virtues of democracy and social justice, while routinely demonstrating devices and perpetuating the institute sense of corrupt aristocracy. In any case. Harvey, thanks again for making room for me in 1060 and 1061. I learned a lot and greatly enjoyed the ride. Now got ten six income tax 1061 students were generally terrific but one reason was harveys reputation for tough grading. Another was his bold incisive occasional, quirky and sometimes elusive observations interpretations and analyzes as a result his classes tended to attract a particular type of student, one who likes likes, likes to test himself or herself against one of harvards finest minds, but also importantly, one ready to risk a hit to his or her gpa for the privilege of accompanying professor mansfield on an eye opening journey. The history of political philosophy. When we had Cottage Grove 1061, harvey, of course, would the opening lectures on machiavelli. One year on the first day of class after riveting but unorthodox introduction, a young woman approached excuse professor burkle, which she said softly, may i talk to you for a moment so sure. Im only freshman, she explained in diffident voice, and not sure i should be taking of 61. Of course, its easy to imagine that she felt nevertheless, i asked her well, why she was hesitate. Because, she replied, even though i found professor presentation fascinating and too i dont think i grasped all his points. I smiled. Dont worry, i said. None us fully grasp all of professor mansfields points. But if you found his lecture is fascinating, and if he makes you laugh rather than recoil without rage, then i you have already grasped. You have grasped enough already to make the rest of the course worthwhile. If memory serves, the soft spoken but intellectually brave young woman earned a name minus in the course, and that was before harvey instituted his two grade policy. You know, one grade that students deserve and a second higher grade for their transfer. Its more consistent with harvards wildly inflated grading practices. In any case, i came to harvard as a younger assistant professor reasonably well versed in what we called that time. The critique of liberalism. We said that with authority and profundity, critique of of liberalism then is now both left and right, promulgated of it. Liberalism referred to the modern of freedom. Some say machiavelli originated it. Others contend that it all started with hobbes. We can agree, though, that gave seminal expression to modern liberalism premises principles and. The term critique in the of liberalism signifies that the modern tradition of freedom was, a spent force according to the critique liberalism, flattened flattered and degraded beings by conceiving of individuals as both rational choosers and as selfcreated sources of value. This liberalism, this modern tradition of freedom, denied our nature is social, political animals. It was said it duty, dismissed the virtues dissolved community, leaving its ruinous wake isolate it and atomized individuals, some listless and apathetic, others restive acquisitive and ambitious for wealth, status and power liberalism was fatally flawed. We learned utterly exhaust did and in need of prompt replaced replaced the critique of liberalism or i should say the, critique of liberalism then is now struck me as powerful but also defective. I was troubled by the critique extremism. Could liberalism really be response civil . The modern tradition of freedom for the principal evils that afflict us . I was vexed by the critiques political irresponsibility. What would replace liberalism in the modern tradition of freedom and at what price . And i was put off by the ingratitude. Wasnt it hypocritical, to enjoy the moral and material fruits of the modern tradition of freedom, rights prosperity, pluralism, while denouncing it. Harveys writings i discovered, present a better way of thinking about. The modern tradition of liberal, modern tradition of freedom. He is among our sharpest critics of liberalism and at the same time, among our shrewdest defenders of it the sharpness of the critique goes, together with the shrewdness of the defense to defend liberalism effectively, you must understand deeply. You must comprehend not only its advantages, but also its incomplete and overreaching assumptions, its blindspots and its temptations. Wasnt it plato . Socrates, his, come to think of it, book one of the republic who observed the best doctor also makes the most accomplished poisoner harvey has described as writing. I quote in defense of a defensible liberalism in defense of a defensible liberalism, the liberalism or what has come to be called liberalism that we see all around us is in many respects not defensible that version of liberalism holds, that government is not in the first place responsible for securing the rights all citizens equally share, but rather for ensuring substantive equality ity in ever expanding spheres of life. Indeed, that responsibility to ensure substantive equality compels government to systematically violate individual such liberalism. However, deviates drastically from liberalisms original premises and aims. It is those that harvey has so much to help us recover. In a short book called spirit of liberalism, harvey characterized himself as a friend of liberalism, a friend liberalism for the liberalism of which harvey was friend was a that was liberalism. The classical liberalism that receives expression in various ways and to different degrees, among others. Locke, montesquieu, madison, adam smith, burke mill, and not least tocqueville. This liberalism assumes that human beings, by nature free and equal, that securing freedom is government, is governments task, and that selfgovernance depends on citizens character and Civil Society is vigor. To say that harvey is a friend of liberalism is to imply that he is not an unqualified of it, even of liberalism well understood. It also suggests that he had other friends in. The tradition of political philosophy, which reminds me of another great moment in gov 1061, but one which occurred before my time. I know of it only through legend, but what a legend is according to the tale, it was passed down to me on the last day. Gun gov 1061 a precocious student put to harvey a question that was often on students minds. Mr. The student said, youve been teaching us political philosophy all year long, every week. Two. You present another thinker. You examine each with enthusiasm and care, but they cant all be right, as youve taught us. They disagree among themselves concerning crucial matters. So i was wondering. Were all wondering who is your favorite . Where do you stand. Harvey chuckled as he is now. He likes precocious students, and after a moments reflection, and he replied with a mischievous grin, lock. In the short run, aristotle. The long run. Nietzsche aspired to capture an aphorism ideas that others required an entire book to express lock in the short run. Aristotle in the long run, comes close. Why lock in the short run . Because lock provides a landmark account of the premises and aims on which our regime, the american Constitutional Order is based. The central ideas of american Constitutional Government are lockean ideas that certain fundamental are inherent in all human beings. The governments first duty is to secure those rights, and the government is limited by those rights. The governments just powers derive from the consent of the governed, and these ideas instituted through the Us Constitution and have conferred on this nation the blessings of liberty. That is our job as citizens to more perfectly and transmit. Locke, in the short run. Why aristotle in the long . Because aristotle elaborates the standards in light of which all actual regimes, all of which are imperfect in one way or another, should be judged by providing a comprehensive account of ethics and politics. Aristotle enables to see more clearly the alternatives to and therefore the strengths and the weaknesses of the liberal. Locke in the short run. Aristotle in the long run. But as youve noticed by now, that leaves something out in saying that he stood with locke the short run and aristotle will in the long run. Harvey silently raised but did answer an intriguing question with whom does he stand in the intermediate run. The answer, im guessing, is tocqueville. Why tocqueville in the intermediate run . Because tocqueville goes beyond analysis of the formal structure of, a free society, but generally, for the most part, tocqueville stopped short of speculating in fashion about best regime and the outstanding human type. Instead, tocqueville provides a peerless account of the spirit of liberal democracy in america. Tocqueville explores the necessity, the justice in the injustice, the benefits and costs of modern democracy, while bringing into focus the exceptional character of american democracy. Tocqueville illuminates, the nongovernmental, supports of liberal democracy in america. He throws into sharp relief the unwise impulses, dangerous tendencies that the encourages, and he shows how political both tempers the destructive excesses to which democracy is prone and creates space to honor duty, cultivate virtue and accomplish great tasks. So locke in the short. Tocqueville in the intermediate aristotle, in the long run, that captures, i think, an essential dimension of harveys Political Science. It crystallized an orientation that enables one as a good friend to rise to the defense of a defensible liberalism. It frames a fitting agenda for lifetime of learning. So thank you, harvey. Thank you very much. Good, everyone. I join the others and thinking a i and the foundation for constitutional for involving me in this day and of course thinking, Harvey Mansfield, to whom i owe so incredibly much. I would join all the praise of his teaching and scholarship that youve heard, but also add something that you probably know but about which we have not heard much today, which is propensity to provoke. He is gadfly and that to teachers. He inspires a kind of he gives the example of it is to be courageous not just to own the libs but. But the intention of educating. There was a way of reading books in his classes that made you feel that understanding is very difficult. Texts, but somehow key to understanding politics and especially what was worthwhile about politics. I will admit i came to his classes not primarily out of an interest in politics. If anything, i was full of suspicion. As you know, many of us outside washington are. We come here and we pass, the pentagon, on our way from the airport and we look down the mall at the capitol and we see enormous concentrations of power. And we see lots of people dressed in suits, scrambling for that power. Is this something respectable . Thats one of the questions that Harvey Mansfield asked in his work, his politics, respectful in politics, and the United States means from most of its History Party politics. Are parties respectable. That was one of the first questions he asked and his studies of burke. What makes politics respectable . What makes the scramble for power something other than what the greeks called on zia . Desire for more. Ive been recently in preparation for this reading some of his earlier writings, not just on tocqueville, but also on american politics. And its hard to read those writings without thinking that part of his answer to that question. What politics respectable is constitutionalism . So the question like to raise just very briefly for discussion here is, what are the prospects for constitutionalism in the United States today and what are the prospects a conservative Republican Party that finds its conservative in the constitution . My sense is that the very word seems even more Old Fashioned now than it did earlier decades, that there is an impatience with the formalities of constitutionalism, with the abstraction of. Were more interested how people use their rights. Were more interested in the policies that get passed and the procedures that seem to stand in the way of achieving those policies of using those can seem just that obstacles they can seem to make us weak. Why allow ourselves to be weakened in politics by the selfrestraint that constitutionalism requires . That impatience with and formalities is one of the themes of tocquevilles democracy in america that mr. Mansfield must likes to cite. Tocqueville warned that democrats tend to be impatient with these formalities, and yet he thought those formalities would become ever more important and democratic times. Id like to. Mention one line from tocqueville that came to my attention as i worked, as a Research Assistant for professor while he was translating tocqueville along with my colleague hansen. You see how a translation is. You see what incredible importance is put on particular words, particular lines. Theres a remark that tocqueville makes and the introduction, his great introduction to the first volume, where he describes his own tocquevilles own Vantage Point on politics. He says he doesnt follow precisely into anyones camp. He to see not differently, but further than parties. And ive always thought that professor mansfield aspired to that, to. So lets think about each part, that line seeing not differently than the parties means you dont come to politics with a solution from the outside, from social science, or from god or from an position as the philosopher john rawls describes, you start from within the perspectives of the political parties. You also, i think for tocqueville dont start from a perspective outside your own era. So was impatient with his family and friends who still thought it was possible to go back to the old regime. No, we live in tocqueville, argued in a democratic era a postrevolutionary era. And prudence, if not philosophical necessity, require that we work within that era. That means that meant for tocqueville. Not trying to overturn democracy, but educate it, tame it, improve it. So seeing not differently from the parties, but tocqueville also further than the parties to see further than the parties is to insist that one can be, as a political philosopher, a questioner even of ones own. Its important that tocqueville said see further than the parties, both of them. So i went back to, professor mansfields writings on american politics, and i was struck by the masterful way in which he performs this sort of gadfly role with respect to both parties. So in 1981, he wrote a piece on government and opposition called the election 1980 toward constitutional democracy. Question mark mark, in which which he wrote not only only to gloat, but also to raise the question of what the election 1980 Ronald Reagan had meant. And he said it meant a repudiation of values of the 1960s. But he focused not mainly on the cultural issues, but on political. And he asked whether conservatives won this victory would really the Political Development of the late 1960s or ear