Challenges our society has had trouble with in recent years this is a time that makes us wonder how strong institutions will be how we rise to a challenge like this but because at the time of testing but also think of americas strength what we are good i had as a country and to address the enormous problems. Host how did we get here . Thats a complicated question. Our country has always tried to strike a balance between the dignity and quality of the individual on one hand and some strength of community on the other our society in the past halfcentury has emphasized the individual, liberty, freedom, dy that has brought some enormous advantages and benefits but there is another side to the coin that can look like fragmentation and isolation and alienation and loneliness and we have seen all that and era marked by a crises to the financial crisis to a pandemic that forces us to look to the sources of our strength and ways to drive us to the history and politics is not always good at doing that for somebody like me trying to work at the intersection of political theory and Public Policy this is a time to think of fundamentals to draw strength from what has been good about our country to address the problems that we live with. Host in your book that fractured republic you talk about the norm have we ever had a norman what you consider to be the norm in this country . Thats a very important question because we live in a time that has a misperception of the norm. Are living in a moment culturally dominated by the baby boomers the generation of people born between 1946 and the early sixties. Still today in their sixties and seventies they are running the Core Institution and in charge of our politics may be President Trump was born 74 years ago this month june 46 president george w. Bush born july 46 bill clinton born august 46. Barack obama 61. They are all boomers and the Life Experience that they have had is the unusual version of america that came out of the Second World War very unified having achieved something great with enormous confidence in institutions, government and working together to solve problems and over the course of the 50 or 60 years we have lived through a fragmentation and diversification that has been good on the margin of Society People that were alienated but that also met we lost that solidarity defining postwar american a lot of politics is defined by a sense of loss that the era of the childhood was the norm and we have fallen from that but that was not the norm it if you look down at america any point in the 19th century would find a divided society with very little confidence dealing with some cultural forces like what we see now with Mass Immigration urbanization and industrialization. Our country has a lot of resources to draw on with a moment like this its important not to misperceive the norm. Fifties and early sixties america that we shouldnt take that to be the norm in some ways we are stuck in that place to regurgitate. Should that be the ideal . No. I dont think so it isnt about one particular moment in history. Ideals should be Core Principles and how we treat each other the ideals are written in the declaration of independence the core fundamental beliefs we are all created equal, the government begins on the premise come as a result we have freedom as individuals but as strong and united society. Those Core Principles with those ideals laid out as forms the government institutional design can provide us through different kinds of challenges. Those ideals are what we should look to in a moment like this but our politics cannot be organized around returning to a golden age which first of all is not as golden as people think it was in for Many Americans it was far from that. And history doesnt go backwards the question now should be how do we become strong for the future so that means reaching to the principles to see how we can apply enduring ideals to changing circumstances as we should be striving to do understanding the country as it is to be home in 21st Century America and how we can be our best selves at this time not return to a bygone golden age but to engage in nostalgia to get in the way of constructive politics. The fractured republic that came out 2016, life in america is always Getting Better and worse at the same time liberals and conservatives frequently insist that only the path of their dreams it is easy to see but also our country was once on that very path has been thrown off course by the foolishness and the wickedness of those on the other side of the aisle the broader public meanwhile is a political debate with evidence of real engagement with contemporary problems and few attractive solutions. That is a description of my frustration of the dynamics of contemporary politics you see that both parties there is a way the Republican Party urines for the social arrangement and the democrats year and for the economic arrangements but the fact is america changed for good reasons we went to liberalization to open up opportunities for those on the margins and also that created choices and dynamism in ways we have benefited from enormously. Also common cost and how we address that not just how we go back to the social order. But the question is how do we apply these and during and deals to a situation we spent too much time worried about whose fault it is we fell from a height rather than preparing for the future Politics Today has remarkable little to say about the future we dont talk much when america will need and 2040 that sounds far away but in 20 years is as close to us as the year 2000 thats exactly what we should be thinking about. There is a need to get ourselves out of the nostalgia for midCentury America speaking as conservatives and in general what we want for the future and what we need to build to get their. Host yuval levin what does a conservative mean to you . I am a conservative. A lot of my work is about that question what that means are the left right divide in american politics and what that is about it begins at the basic premise of anthropology. My conservativism starts human beings are born lessthanperfect fallen or broken or twisted we need to be formed before we can be free and that is done by the Core Institutions of society by community and education and by politics and culture so those that are capable hot to be valued and treasured and conserved their proven themselves over time to be capable to provide generations of people with what we need to be a free society. Because i begin from the premise that is difficult to do an affirmation is difficult, want to conserve the institutions. People who describe themselves as progressives at their best begin from a different premise that we are born free but many people are not for your living up to their potential because they are oppressed at impressed on them the status quo there is truth to both of these but what you choose to emphasize runs very deep in your character in your cents free society does need them both but ultimately a conservative view offers what Society Needs the most along with justice so i am a conservative. Host in your most recent book time to build our souls and institutions shape each other in an ongoing way when they are flourishing to make us more decent responsible that when they are flagging and integrated they fail to form us or to be cynical and selfindulgent and reckless reinforcing devices that undermine a free society. The book is really about the nature of the social crisis we are living through. The previous book tries to think in broad terms of social dynamics in the history that led us to the polarization and the newer book, a time to build things about the institutional underpinnings of the social crisis we are living through how we connect with each other, how we understand ourselves to be parts of a larger whole of isolation that only Political Polarization but in the private lives of many people a desperation that leads people to opioids and the enormous increase the suicide rate and i argue that is the weakening of our institution with a sense the purpose is not to form or mold them but use as a platform to stand on and be seen to build the following or build their own brand or elevate themselves. There has been id information from politics to perfection to the academy where people think of the institutions as platforms for themselves rather than the mold for our character and behavior and what it means to be part of an institution to be shaped by the institution is very important to the recovery and we see that and politics that people run for congress to get a bigger social media following and to get a better timeslot on cable news rather than thinking of how to work with institutions to change our country for the better. Host you write in a time to build we have seen a powerful addition of dereliction and dysfunction which takes us deeper to the core of congress institutional confusion, simply but many members have come to understand fundamentally as players in a larger cultural ecosystem at the point of which is not legislating or governing but a performance outrage for partisan audience. You mentioned matt gates the republican of florida and aoc has two people who represent this. Yes. I use them as examples but the problem is much more widespread. We come to a place we think of Political Institutions as platforms for cultural performances. People run for congress to get a blue checkmark next to their name on twitter more than enact legislation. They are trying to do good and improve society but they see the role politics can play is fundamentally a platform role to put themselves in a place where they can channel the outrage of the voters who got them ther there, they can perform and stand as outsiders and comment about Congress Rather than those in congress. That has been happening in the presidency as well and President Trump exemplifies that more than any other president that it is a stage to perform. The president sees himself as an outsider he spends a lot of time talking about the government complaining on twitter like the department of justice rather than understanding himself as the ultimate insider with the responsibility that is defined by the role that he plays. So ultimately be argue to recover a functional institutionalism we have to ask ourselves the question we dont ask anymore, given my role how should i behave . As a member of president how shed i behave or as a pastor or congregant how should i behave thats the way to let the institutional roles form and shape the way be behave in society to drive us to a greater responsibility and obligation rather than think of ourselves as standing alone on a platform and acting out that cultural rage social media taking the Core Institutions and we need to push back. Host technology has played a role . Yes. Ultimately it serves the role we wanted to. The forces run deeper than in technology not just at the whim a social media but we use them in these ways because thats what were looking for that liberalization and diversification in the middle of the 20th century many of the great social forces were telling people be more like everyone else and thats all very constricting in our time there is a lot of good to that but it can also tear society apart and where we can lean too hard so with solidarity and how we think of society. Host yuval levin i want to bring your book the great debate into the conversation and start with reading this quote, the political left and right seem genuinely distinct points of view to bring to the surface that divide them how do we become country of the political left and right . That is the subject of the book it is intellectual history and began as my dissertation at the university of chicago and over a period of years tries to look at the origins of the left right divide and it does that through the lands of the late 1h century debate between edmund burke and thomas paine edmund burke the great politician thought to be one of the fathers of modern conservativism, thomas paine a revolutionary war figure became an important figure to make the case for the french revolution and engaged for each other with the nation of social change and that encapsulated with the core distinction between the left and right and begins from a beginning anthropology and then to thrive and flourish and be free so most of these are generally speaking liberal views they both believe in democracy and individual liberty and they differ fundamentally what the free society really is of how to advance the good is still the right way to understand the left right debate in politics the left and the right are not factions they are parties in the sense they are divided by a difference of opinion what would be good for everyone so that is a constructive politics it is necessary to formulate the debates of the countries and it still serves us this way the difference between left and right that are still relevant and what politics is about. Host what is your background to come to this point of view . And immigrant to the United States born in israel my family came to the us when i was eight years old. I grew up here mostly new jersey went to college in washington dc worked on capitol hill, graduate School University of chicago and then came back to work in the Bush Administration dhs and then the Bush White House as a policy staffer and then went into the think tank world where i have been at the intersection of political theory and philosophy in my work in Public Policy of political practice say started in 2009 journal of quarterly affairs and i try to connect policy and practice to shed light on the other and has how i came to my conservative views for me that is a mystery has to do with influences around me growing up. My father is a conservative. But this reaches to a mysterious level we never fully understand and how we understand those fundamental views but i am impressed by institutions that enable people to thrive so im very impressed by the americans social order and constitutional system and we can draw a lot out of history from what we confronted so i am a conservative. What are the nonnegotiables . Those are stated in the declaration of independence we believe in human equality and dignity thats why people are on the street now because we all saw on video a gross violation and abuse of a person to be treated as an equal and wasnt that is a nonnegotiable fact whatever the political inclination we all believe we are created equal and endowed with basic rights the government exist to protect those rights and from there on we have a lot of debate what should institutions look like and what is the most effective but the basic ideals written in the charter of society are the nonnegotiables of american politics. I think they are true. Host good afternoon and welcome to book tv on cspan2 the are were monthly in Depth Program we have missed you the last couple months we are glad to be alive again with author and scholar yuval levin author of five books beginning with tyranny of reason coming out 2001, imagining the future, 2008. The great debate 2013. The fractured republic 2017. Now a time to build 2020. We want you to participate in our conversation this afternoon beginning with the phone number you have all social media sites. Host back to the great debat debate, what is a lasting effect of the french revolution in france in this country . It was really one of the core ethical moments and the effects have been enormous. It unleashed the modern wave a revolution for good and bad and created the frame the shape of modern radicalism shaping 19th century politics and is still with us today in many ways. It is important to see it is not where modern liberalism is born the liberal society broadly understood not in the left that our way of life really began in the United Kingdom well before the french revolution also the american happened revolution before france and i think of that is the great turning point in Human History of a truly free society made possible with the achievement of the dreams of liberalism. But after the french revolution the politics of our society presided over a core question of social change do we change by building on the past or breaking with it . That basic question in a lot of ways is the distinction between left and right became the defining organizing question not only france but britain and the United States and every free Society Today so you find polity on policies that are divided if it is the crown or the parliament should have power that was changing by the 18th century but with the french revolution the question that divided left and right was essentially the french revolution of the purpose of politics is an ongoing constitutional revolutionary process ultimately to liberate us from the burdens of the past if the purpose is gradual change that keeps us connected to western civilization enabling us to make the most of our inheritance so that conservative you the french revolution had enormous amount of the debates that we have and in many ways. And it fits with your description of edmund burke gradual performer to uproot. He was a wig and auditory he came from and that fundamental disposition was gradual reform it is almost offered in opposition to revolution that we need to change gradually so we dont lose we have built up of what works and to change what doesnt work. Pain had much less patience and said the status quo is unjust we need to overturn and start over we know the principles lets throw out what we have got coming from an age of oppression and start over in the right way much more radical revolutionary those are contained within the American Revolution both a conservative and a radical revolution in the declaration of independence that begins by stating very radical principles but then goes on to state prudence demands you just dont overthrow government for shallow reasons and list the reasons why ameri