On the future of conservatism. My name is ryan williams, i am president of the Claremont Institute. Before we get started, i would like to offer a few remarks by way of introduction. Our mission at the Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the american founding to their rightful and preeminent authorities in our national light. To startt it fitting coming to the American Political Science Association over 30 years ago to provide a safe space for the serious discussion of political things for academic friends, admirers, and intelligent critics. Political science over the past halfcentury, much like the social sciences in general, has been obsessed with or consumed by often narrow and therefore measurable aspects of Human Affairs. With the underlying assumption that any great into facts must be separated from any discussion of values. , toave always thought paraphrase leo strauss, to the extent of Human Affairs and political things cannot be properly understood without taking into account the purposes or principles that actually move human beings in political communities. Any signs or inquiry must be taken into account. The whole truth of human political accident , truth and valleys. Or as we prefer to refer to them, more truths or principles of reason and human nature. Much of modern Political Science must miss a crucial part of political things by leaving aside questions of value. It is in that sense very unscientific, or can be. We have always made our focus the scholarship of the politics of freedom. That brings me to our panel path topic today, the future of conservatism. The future of conservatism indeed the shape and future of our national politics, generally is an open question in a way that we havent seen in some time. Avenuess opened up new for fresh thinking about the statesmans perennial tasks, the applications of timeless truths, human nature, and political things, and their prudent application to circumstances. Much change from 1030 years ago, let alone the time of the founding. I look forward to our discussion today and comments from panelists. I will introduce them in the order in which they will speak. John marinis parents there a Political Science professor of Political Science. He has written and published over many decades on political philosophy in american politics, and the bureaucracy in the Administrative State, and was an early and incisive trumpstative of donald fascinating rise in american politics over the last 18 months. Thomas g west, paul or mine, don tibbetts potter, where he teaches. He has been writing articles and editing volumes for many years on political philosophy, american political thought, and politics. I encourage you to pick up his new book the political theory of the american Founding National rights Public Policy and the moral conditions of freedom. Stephen bulge is director of the institute for study of western civilization at texas tech university. Before that, he was the founding of scholars, were he served 25 years. He was honored for work in 2007 with the National Humanities medal. Went one hael michael antwan. He is a former manager and Corporate Communications professional, and has worked in speech writing. He was the author last fall of unimportant and intelligently essay of the claremont review books. We have copies in the back, i encourage you to pick up a copy. To point you to his wonderful assets with claremont review books, which has been which he is been writing for many years. California politics, wine, machiavelli, even to the beach boys. With that, we start off with mr. Marini. Future of conservatism, thats our panel. I think we are entitled to ask if contemporary conservative has a future or if it deserves one. Conservatism is most often understood as defensive tradition, however understood against an ongoing and transformative liberalism. Intellectually, it is understood in terms of philosophy of history, in which purposeful change is revealed rationally. Politically, those who oppose change or progress are reactionaries are conservatives. Unlike the liberals will embrace change, conservatives think to a connection is to past. , ofhistorical understanding liberalism and conservatism derived from the peoples brought about in the aftermath of the french revolution. It was an intellectual and political response to the excesses of the revolution that had been justified on behalf of a dogmatic understanding of reasoning. The backlash against revolutionary fervor serves to undermined theoretical or philosophic reason and helped to establish a new defensive tradition, a romantic attachment to the past, a dogmatic philosophy of history. When europes conservative were those opposed to revolution, and the political agenda was understood as a defense mechanism that preceded revolution. Came to be understood as a defense of the old regime. In europe, that required a defense of the tradition of throwing it all. A political defense of the monarchy and established church. American conservatism could not understand itself in this way. America established itself on the grounds of the revolution. It celebrated the revolution as a great good for mankind. That defensive revolution was not a defensive established church, institutionalized asarchy, or the modern state immersed in the 19 century. The American Revolution was understood as a political defense, a regime of civil and religious liberty in which the church could not defend upon government to enforce its claims , nor could government, limited by constitutional restraints, undermine the church or the traditions of the institutions of civil society. Conservatism was not understood as merely a doctorate or even a dogma to be upheld intellectually as the antidote to liberalism. It was taught to be a political defense, the conventional way of life, one that preserved the best of the past as essential to that tradition. Although america established itself on a revolutionary foundation, unlike france, it did not attempt to initiate a new order of things that would obliterate the traditional moral religious and intellectual legacy of the past. In the eyes of the american founders, the revolution and its reconstitution was meant to ,efend the highest intellectual political, and religious thoseions of the past, philosophy, literature, science, and theology. Defense of the past and tradition would subsequently be a common defense of the founding, and those internal soundings which it established itself. The historical ideas that were derived for reasons, nature, and revelations. They incorporated an attempt to reconcile the tension, in the political theological dilemma, thereby defend the way of life derived from each printed the conservative defense of the american regime would require a defensive theoretical principle upon which it was founded. Those First Principles that transcend historical time. The political theory of the american founding is rendered meaningless if it is understood in terms of historical walk. Its not a surprise that the philosophic ground of the American Revolution, and the regime it established, is no longer a living thing. For liberals or conservatives. The lincoln was faced with necessity of confronting this dilemma from understanding what part of the past can be preserved and what must be changed, he had to come to grips with the meaning of conservatism. He did so at a time when not only the understanding, the political meaning of the unchangeable or self evident truths which established the First Principles of revolution that had been denied. Lincoln did not defend himself as a conservative, he had been condemned by his enemies as a revolutionary. The civil noted in cooper union address. ,you say you are conservatives we are revolutionary, destructive or something of the sort. What is conservatism . Itd years to the old and tried against the new and old tried we stand for the identical policy on the point of controversy that was adopted by our fathers who framed the government and under which we live. You with one accord reject and scout and spit on the old policy and insist upon substituting something new. Opponentsted that his were unanimous in their defense, despite the disagreement concerning what the new policy should be. Lincoln noted true, you disagreed among yourselves as to be, you substitute will divided a proposition and plans, but were unanimous in rejecting the old policy of the fathers. Is not the contemporary recognition of politics as made intelligible only in terms of history the modern confirmation of the fact that there is an agreement between liberals and conservatives simply because they have both rejected the policy of the fathers for natural right itself. After attack on metaphysical reason, it becomes almost impossible to establish an objective or nonhistorians is ground of principle. Lincoln was aware that the only defense of the triedandtrue, of tradition, with the defense of the unchanging principles of political right that must be understood in terms of an unchanging human nature. They presuppose the distinction between theoretical and practical reason, which made it possible to distinguish unchanging principles from policies that must change. That understanding was based upon an assumption of the benevolence of nature. Capacity of and the human reason to comprehend and impose those limits on human freedom that are necessary to ensure human happiness. The old can also be defended as the good, that conservatism can remain a living thing. Is the most recent historicists understanding of freedom that revealed nature itself after radical, and has attempted the selfdestruction of philosophic reason by liberating the creative individual from the chains imposed by nature and reason itself. Then it is something that must be freely chosen and selfcreated and expressed by the individual alone. Civilt be defended in society by government and law. Socialist institutions dissent depend have become electric intellectually defensive. In terms of contemporary, social, and political thought, it is the understanding of the old that is no longer defensive. Its political defense has also become precarious, if not attentive. This makes the defense of reasonable conservatism and constitutionalism itself something akin to the defense of a dream. It only masquerades itself is reality and only in the minds of his devotees. History understood is the way in which contemporary man has come to define himself. Consciousessivism was of itself, in understood as providing the light for the way to the glorious future. When progressive intellectuals lost confidence in the idea of and enlightenment rationality, as well as technical or scientific regions, they abandoned the hope of a future good and began to revise the meaning of the task. Posed byas analyzed, the abandonment of its rationality. The excess of historys has attacked the plastic powers of life. It no longer understands how to avail itself of the pasts party harassment. We are dependent upon how we avail ourselves to the past. Whether its hearty nurse meant, or a threatening poison. The postmodern intellectuals pronounced their judgment on americas past, and found it to be morally indefensible. Achievement,uman philosophy, religion, literature, and the humanities themselves, came to be understood as an exploitation of the power. Rather than allowing the past to be viewed in terms of its aspiration, and its a compliment, it has been judged its accomplishment, it has been judged. It is not understood in terms of slavery, racism, and identity politics. That historical judgment made it necessary to be able to take the side of the powers, and made it necessary to condemn the exploiters. Political correctness arose as a practical and necessary means of enforcing that historical judgment. There could be no public defensive task, which can be allowed to live in the present. Instead, public morality of Public Policy would come to be understood in terms of the formerly oppressed. It is not surprising that trumps past american greatness would provoke a political war against the intellectuals. Nonetheless, it is difficult to understand the present situation from the perspective of the most recent socialist or intellectual manifestations of liberalism or conservatism. The contemporary meaning of those terms has been derived from the politics of the recent past. They are the very things that are now in question. In the wake of the 2016 election, the Political Authority of the intellectual leaders of both organized liberalism and conservatism has been under attack. Trump succeeded in supporting parts of the political constituencies of both parties, from their organizations to ideological leadership. Alone,Republican Party and this has caused a civil war between numerous conservative opinion leaders who have opposed trump and their many followers who have embraced you. That the surprising whole of the washington establishment, liberal and conservative leaders alike, have objected to the manner in which he has removed political discourse on their hands by questioning from their hands by questioning legitimacy. Trump mobilized the political constituency by recognizing a political reality that was still visible to the american people, not the intellectuals or the political establishment. It was a reality they experienced in their own lives, in their own communities, but it was in opposition to the socially constructive public war of selfproclaimed narrative established by the ruling elite. That narrative, which the intellectuals themselves have is consistently distinguished from factual reality, is a product of postmodern thought. By political,zed social, economic, and media elites. Dt is dictated what constitute the morally defensible and political and social world. Although he has mobilized the constituents and, propelled him to the forefront of american politics, remains to be seen whether the Political Authority of the people can be restored. It is not some surprising that many wonder if they conserve anything meaningful from the past. They have experienced the wholesale destruction of the regime, civil and religious liberty. It was built upon intellectual and moral tradition and established in the course of a 2000yearold civilization. It may still be possible to preserve a conservative doctrine , but its not unreasonable to ask whether it is possible to live a traditional or conservative life. The intellectual, political, and economic, and social elites have utilized special knowledge derived from social sciences as the ground upon which they have succeeded in transforming the moral foundation of civil society. They did so by undermining the authority. The Traditional Authority of the family church, and other nongovernmental civil associations that made civil and religious liberty a meaningful reality. Although conservatism was once unified in its opposition to big andrnment, the rise consolidation of the Administrative State has established a public purpose for collegeeducated conservatives, as well as liberals. Modern government is necessarily unlimited government. It is meant to solve all of the problems of human life, such an endeavor requires scientific or rational control of the whole society, as well as the economy. Conservatives and liberals have an important date in defense of isir rational rule understood through the professionals that established their authority and. Status the new class is privileged by knowledge, the conservative social or economic agenda may differ from the liberal one, but both are defenders of rational, not political rule. They agree on administrative rule. If it is not possible to defend, or even understand in a meaningful way the principles of the American Revolution, no conservative defense of constitution is politically viable. In analyzing modern revolution since machiavelli. The fact that not only the various revolutions of the 20th century, but all revolution since the french have gone wrong. Ending in either restoration or indicate thatto even those last means of salvation provided by tradition have become inadequate. None of those subsequent revolutions could reconcile the notion of founding with the defense of any kind of tradition. All were destined to consume themselves in the process of founding. One modern revolution. She insisted that of all revolutionary attempts. Only 1 only the American Revolution has been successful. Either liberals nor conservatives can provide a meaningful theoretical defense of the American Revolution. It is now easier politically to defend the postfrench failed,ons that have then it is to defend the one revolution that was once thought to be the only successful modern revolution. Thank you. [applause] conservatism has a future in america only if conservatives engage in a change of orientation. I would suggest the definition and lost two kinds of conserving. One conserving the american nation against invasion, whether violent or nonviolent. Leftconserving what is of american constitutionalism, towards the good of all citizens while providing security for each. This conservatism would aim at the restoration of the rule of law in the pre19 . 60, equal protection of all classes and punishment of all crimes, no matter what the race, sex, or class of the perpetrator or victim. It would also protect the civil rights in all americans, not just women and minorities. Conservatives of the older type would argue a really preferences. Kind,nservatives of this return to the america of 1960 as it was governed outside of the south, would be welcome in comparison to what we have now. , im not saying we need to go back to the findings for conservatism to be genuine. Isthesis is the conservatism mostly gone from American Public life. They call themselves conservatives, but are interested in declaration of independence, constitution, natural rights, and rule of law. I will give some evidence in support of it. Support of that claim, i will talk about why conservatives today seen no longer able to be conservative in the sense that i talk about. Conserving the nation and its constitutional principles requires that the people who live here and you still have some attachment to the older america