Good evening and welcome to our grand rapids audience in the cspan viewers out there, were im Gleaves Whitney i had the privilege of serving in this Great Institution with great partners at the National Archives and your foundation. And i said the director without foundation three years. Yeah, we could have. These are Interesting Times which are. Wars and rumors of wars released deep economic challenges here at home and abroad, dysfunction in our government institutions, americans expressing a deep crisis, confidence in leaders. Its decisions. All the things our national guard, our selves sounds familiar, no doubt. And it describes what was going on a half century ago. It seems sorry that if you look at the service upstairs, you now one of the questions the American People faced during that time, also this period, a half century, our nation was band supported the bicentennial celebration of 1976. It formed within us in that endeavor and that same question today is whether the United States is a great nation, arguably may precisely the greatest nation or so fundamentally flawed. It cannot be effectively reformed or ready now that so great question is for our participants. We saw this evening and we found a section. I asked my good friend and colleague jeff what actor jeff platt is the director of the fourth Leadership Forum here at the ford foundation, and he some thoughtful questions or this to interlocutors suggests that jeff is going to introduce them now. Thank you, jeff. Its. My hope i can fulfill your hopes that these questions will actually be provocative. Im not completely sure that id like to welcome everyone here, and i know this hasnt gone exactly as planned. We had originally scheduled dr. Gordon wood for this evening. He was not able to attend, but i think that weve hit a home run as a pinch hitter in this situation. So were very pleased to welcome to our stage two professors from the university of notre dame, dr. Patrick deneen to my immediate left and then to my far left. Dr. Phillip munoz and june. Of 2018, barack obama posted on his Facebook Page the ten books that he was reading at that time, and one of the books he mentioned, he set about the book in a time of growing inequality, accelerating change and increasing disillusionment with the liberal democratic order weve known for the past few centuries, i found this book thoroughly thought provoking. I dont agree with most of the authors conclusions, but the book offers cogent insights into the loss of meaning and community that many in the west feel issues that liberal democracy is ignore at their own peril. That book was this book why liberalism failed by patrick deneen. One of our guests tonight. One lesson from that, by the way, is if you want to sell books, have an expresident tweet about it. So that unbelievable marketing strategy. In addition to being the author of why liberalism failed, dr. Deneen is also the author of regime change. His most recent book, the odyssey of political theory democratic faith and conserving america. Dr. Phillip munoz. To my knowledge, no president has tweeted about you yet, but i suspect your day will come. You can read in your fliers his biography. He is the author of religious liberty and the american founding natural rights and the original meanings of the first amendment, religion clauses, god and the founders. Madison, washington and jefferson. And religious liberty. And the american Supreme Court. The central cases and documents. And i am thrilled that they have come here tonight to join us on our stage for what i do believe will be a provocative conversation. Lets begin with sort of what gleaves was talking about. Maybe even what president obama was talking about. And were going to be talking mainly about the american founding. But lets begin in the present. In your writings, you have both expressed concern that the american experiment is in trouble. And i think that we can all see the symptoms of this. What do you mean by that . And what evidence do you give for it . And then after that, ill ask you what you think has caused it. Patrick, you want to go first . Sure. Well, let me first thank jeff gleaves at the Gerald Ford Museum foundation for this invitation. We realize were pinch hitters and pale comparisons to the clean up batter who was scheduled for tonight. So im no gordon wood and i know that. But maybe two of us together can come up to about a quarter of what what he might have been able to offer. Im also actually i should mention that im delighted i am to be here with my colleague phillip munoz, who has i think is about three doors away from me in the hallway where our department is. But whom i just spent 2 hours driving up here with and probably was about the longest time ive seen you in about the last ten years. Were both very busy people, so it was great to spend time with my colleague and friend, dr. Munoz. I suppose gleaves introduction reflects what i doubt. I dont doubt many of us in this room feel that something is deeply awry and deeply wrong, and its difficult to sort of put ones finger on exactly what it is. But ill make at least something of an attempt. I think we could point, as he began, with the kind of deteriorating intonation tional situation, one thats very much on our minds, and one over which in the years that i was growing up and maybe many in this room are growing up, the kind of post World War Two era, which of course we saw wars, we saw korea, we saw vietnam, we saw wars in the middle east. Nevertheless, it felt in some ways like there was an International Order in some form. And i think that that may in some ways be coming to an end, certainly one that has had america as a kind of hegemonic power. And were seeing the rise of a kind of now multipolar International Order. But i dont think thats thats really the the reason of our deepest anxiety. I think i think all of us in this room are feeling a certain amount of economic anxiety with what seems to be worsening conditions of inflation, massive deficits of our government, massive deficits, debts of its deficits of many homes. The level of indebtedness of the students that we teach. I mean, the idea of a young person coming out of college and being massively in debt, what a what a horrible legacy of a successful country thats not the root cause. I think we can point to the decay of our cities, the divisions that exist now between red and blue america at some level. And those are certainly parts of it. But let me at least offer one one suggestion about the maybe the deepest roots of our sense of anxiety about the present and the future. And i thought it was interesting that it was mentioned that 1770, 1976, the bicentennial. I remember those years i was 12 years old. I remember very vividly. I remember learning how to sign John Hancocks name. This was like that was my lesson plan. My mother and father flew to flags on the two poles of our front porch, the American Flag and the betsy ross American Flag as the two flags, though, that would now be considered to be a macro aggression. In fact, it was actually, i think, in the last year or two, a Sneaker Company used the betsy ross flag as a symbol. I think it was nike used it and it turned out that was no longer acceptable to use the betsy ross flag as a symbol, the original symbol of america. Weve always had divisions, even in 1776 and in 1976. This country has had divisions. But those divisions have been in the context of, i think, a widely shared belief that this nation, that this place to which many, of course, most, if not all of our forebears emigrated somewhere, then living memory was a place worthy of our admiration and worthy of our loyalty and even of our love. Not unconditional, not without criticism. No one whos been married for any amount of time knows that theres that love, even the deepest love comes with a capacity. Indeed, a true love comes with the capacity of criticism, of recognize shortcomings. And i, i think the deepest anxiety arises from a kind of a recognition in some ways that that has ceased at some level that we have now a growing number, indeed, a very sizable number of our fellow citizens who regard this country as so flawed, as so deeply flawed, that it can no longer be the subject of our admiration or loyalty and even potentially critical love. And that means theres no basis for a conversation any longer. That means it eliminates the possibility of a kind of normal politics to occur, because normal politics occurs from a baseline line of a commitment to a kind of common project and a common set of beliefs. And what we really have are two fundamentally different worldviews, one of which says this project, this nation, this place, for all of its flaws, is worthy of our efforts, our shared efforts. And another which says its fundamentally wrong. Its fundamentally wrong, its fundamentally flawed and has to be fundamentally changed and overthrown. My last book was called regime change, and its calls for a change of regime. But i call for a change of regime in significant part because i think we have undergone on a change of regime, weve undergone a fundamental change in how we think about ourselves, our nation, who we are. And so i think that thats the in some ways, if i were to locate one, one locus that makes it almost impossible for us to address all these plethora of other problems international economic, politics, oil and so forth. I would have to place the spotlight on that and that issue and that question. Perhaps you can give us a more sober analysis of patricks rosy view. Patricks thank you to the to the museum, to the foundation, to jeb, to cleaves, and to all of you for coming out. Its a its my third time in grand rapids in the last three months. And i love it here and i love coming back. So its good to be back. I thought, what patrick said it was quite accurate and quite profound and quite good. I think i agree with almost all of it. I was thinking of two things simultaneously. Im not sure if they go together. So my father came over to america from the philippines after sputnik. Hes a very, very young engineer. And after sputnik went up, the United States was welcome engineers from around the world. And he i think he landed in San Francisco on a boat with, uh, 150 in his pocket and he had to make his way to West Virginia, where he went to university of West Virginia on an engineering scholarship. And he loved america. And he he was a teenager during World War Two in the philippines and missed several years of school because of World War Two and was forced to learn japanese. And for for him, america was literally the country that saved his life, that was promise for the future, a great force for good. He when i got the job at notre dame, he they would go to the movies when he was growing up and i dont know, in the philippines in the 1940s that movie clips and theyd show notre dame football highlights at the beginning of the movie clips and so notre dame to so i grew up in a household that loved america that, that america was the future and, and my dad really, you know, he didnt want it. He wanted me only to learn english because he wanted me to be an american. And so my position at notre dame, i run the center for citizenship, a constitutional government. Were thinking a lot about the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence. And ive been thinking, will america celebrate america when we turn 250 . And im not sure. And so i think a lot of our anxieties this is just to echo what patrick said, that hope and optimism that, you know, my father came here from. Weve lost that somehow. I think i think that is a cause of our anxiety. We had a naturalization ceremony here in the auditorium yesterday, and it was a room filled with people who loved this country. Uh, but i can think of lots of places where i would be surrounded by people in this land, by people who dont love this country. And they wont name actual places of got some names. So lets think about this a little bit in terms of of how we got here and then how that relates to the theme of tonights discussion about is this sort of baked into the whole american experiment that it was going to end up looking Something Like this . Or is this an aberration and a kind of breaking of the promise . And if so, when and how did such breaking occur . So, phillip, ill let you go first on that one. Why, thats a big question. I think back so i study lincoln and my my favorite person to teach is lincoln. My two favorite americans are Abraham Lincoln and clarence thomas. I guess im like, maybe reveals where i am on the political spectrum. George washington and Frederick Douglass are three and four. And when i think about when i teach lincoln. So in my class, i go from lincoln to Woodrow Wilson and lincoln. If you read lincolns speeches, hes always calling us back to our ancient faith. And by that, he meant the declaration of independence. And this is how he thought we should deal with the problem of slavery. The question the political question at the time was what to do about slavery in the territories. Do you allow slavery to go in the territories or do you not . This is an 1850s and lincoln said, no, we should not allow slavery to go into the territories. Theres nothing we can do about slavery in the states because its a state questions. But we shouldnt allow it to expand. And why should we allow it to expand . Because slavery and contradiction to our our ancient faith that all men are created equal. And he said that over and over. He said, we can as evil as slavery is, we can be dedicated americans as long as we believe that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction and slavery will be in the course of ultimate extinction if we retain our fundamental belief in human equality that all men are created equal. Fast forward to Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow wilson said, dont Pay Attention to the declaration of independence. And that change that happened in that 50 year period, i think, is perhaps when we began to lose our ancient faith of human equality and weve forgotten the fundamental dignity of all human individuals as individuals. And now we group people in different ways and give them status are not stars. Its not status based on different characteristics. And i think thats fundamentally parasitic on under on our understanding of the possibility of brotherhood, of loyalty, of patriotism, of being one people. I think its been going on for about a century now. As well. So weve been invited here not just to agree with each other, but but occasionally to disagree with each other. I think its actually its interesting to have us together because we agree on so much. I think if you were to ask us sort of issue for issue, we would find a lot of agreement. But i think phillip and i represent two very different ways of understanding and the american past and the recent past. And in some ways, i think because we come from a place of a lot of agreement, those differences are actually kind of interesting. Its not like switching between fox and msnbc, where theres no conversation. We actually agree on a lot, as i think our first answer suggests, but disagree quite a bit on where things went wrong. And i would say that i would have a difficult time sort of giving a date or a thinker. I think its a little bit more like the frog being boiled that its not clear when the temperature got quite so hot. But but you can see if you look in retrospect, how the temperature was rising over a period of time. But i think in particular, that what was the title of the book that was supposed to be discussed tonight . Order and liberty and liberty. Order and liberty. I think this was gordon wood his book sort of honor the absent guest. I think a lot of the difficult ds and problems of america right now go to the embattled s between these two goods. These two positive goods that i think every human being recognizes as a good it is a good is a good thing to live in a condition of liberty and a condition in which you can chart your path in which you have the ability to make decisions, genuine decisions about your life path, your family, who you will wed, where you will live, the kind of career you will pursue, but that there is also a genuine good of order. And indeed, without order there cant be any real liberty as we know. Right . How can you be thought to be genuinely free in a condition where theres a lack of order . And i think in many ways the i would identify the problem of the frog being boiled as one in which the embargo has gone way off the charts as an embrace of liberty. And i think this embrace of liberty is bipartisan. It takes different forms, but its bipartisan. And i think its reflected in what has been the kind of political reaction that weve seen in the last several years from across the world in the form of what we call populism today. And that reaction, no matter what you think of populism or donald trump or brexit, that reaction has been, i take it i demand for a rebalancing from people who are not experiencing liberty as a positive, good, but as if the as the condition of a kind of disorder, the liberty that has created disorder in their lives is, on the one hand, a form of kind of a radical doctrine in their economic libertarianism that has taken the form of globalization, of outsourcing, of jobs. I dont have to tell people in michigan too much about that. The the devastation to our domestic manufacturing, which was affected through policy, through policy in washington and in the states, as well as, of course, decisions that were made by companies that that were taken in the belief that a kind of an order of a free market that didnt take into account the needs of a nation to have certain kinds of production, to produce certain kinds of goods that its a its an essential thing to have pharmaceutical produced in your country. It turns out that having it all produced in china may not be the best idea. So on the one hand, there was this economic liberty that caused a lot of suffering in this part of the country and in lots of other part of the country. And at the same time advanced by the the political left. There was a form of liberty, especially in the form of lifestyle, liberty to to be and expres