We want to give respect to those who bravely fought for our country. Please rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Please be seated. So i want to start off by acknowledging our partners in planning todays event. Rosemary, i just want to say thank you so much for the generous reception that happened beforehand. Its always an honor to work with the two of you and your commitment both to education and to this place is truly remarkable. Even were honored to work with you and the Thousand Oaks women federated. So thank you very much. I also want to thank at the end of this evening courtesy of our friends at the ash brook center cop yifz a book edited, selected and introduced by dr. Gordon lord. I believe we have enough copies for everyone in the audience. So he will be signing copies of this at the end of tonight. So just an in addition to free food, you get a free door prize. What better way to celebrate the blessings of liberty than with gordons book . So september 17 sj going to mark the 230th anniversary of the signing of the constitution. If president reagan were here, n. This room, i think he would be very happy to know that all of us gathered to day to mark this occasion. One of the quotes that president reagan was very famous for was freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We dont pass it to our children in the bloodstream, it must be fought for, protected and handle on for them to do the same. So smimdz this quote is used to talk about defense, president regular juan as famous for his peace through strength and this quote is used to defend defense. But defense isnt the only way to preserve freedom. So just like a football team, doesnt matter how great your defense, is if the offense cant put a few points on the board. So consider tonight education as freedoms offensive unit. And today dr. Gordon lloyd is going to be playing the role of quarterback, pass is freedom from one generation to the next. Excellent. As you see from his talk tonight, hes going to be a hall of famer on that team. So the topic is the lost art of compromise. Since the beginning of our country we have in some ways been defined by opposing forces and factions, patriots and loyalists, north versus the south, big states versus small states, big city versus the countryside, old versus young, good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny, red states, blue states, republicans versus democrats and, of course, for all you baseball fans, the giants versus the dodgers. Over the past couple of decades, our nation has become increasingly polarized politically. To the point where merely working with someone from the opposite party can often mean getting voted out of office the next time you come up for election. On the 230th anniversary of the constitution, what can we learn from the framers about compromise . And what about what compromise means in the spirit of something greater than any one of us in that american idea thats been around since long before any of were here and will exist and remain long after the conflicts of our generation have been passed on to the historians . Before i introduce dr. Gordon lloyd, i want to read just a brief excerpt from president reagans speech from almost 30 years ago on the 200th anniversary of the constitution. He said, to look back on that time at the difficulties faced and sur mounted can only give us perspective on the present. Each generation, every age i imagine has prone to think its devil bessette by unusual and particularly threatening difficulties. To look back on the past is a golden age when issues were not so complex and politics not so divisive when problems did not seem continue to tractable. Sometimes were tempted to think of the birth of our country as one such golden age. The time characterized by harmony and cooperation. In fact, the constitution and our government were born in crisis. The years leading up to our lea convention were some of the most difficult our nation has ever endured. It wasnt the absence of problems that won the day in 1787, it was the presence of something higher. The vision of democratic government founded upon those self evident truths that still resound in independent hall that enablesm them to rise aand transcend their differents and this constitution that would alter not these United States, but the world. It is now my pleasure to introduce a man who knows a thing or two about that document and one of our favorite visitors a man i call a friend. Americas professor and the unforgettable, dr. Gordon lloyd. [ applause ] thank you. That is very good. I want to reiterate what tony has said about thanking our benefactors and i want to also thank you for coming out on this balmy evening to hear about the constitution and it is good to see some Friendly Faces as well as some old faces that i hope are still friendly. And the young faces which i see from year to year and they seem to get younger. Which is i think a good sign. Being a professor still, i have three points to make. But i promise that i could always do 1a, 1b, 2c, 3d and spring it out. But the first issue that i want to raise is this whole notion of the art of compromise. Tony gave me the topic of the last art of compromise which sort of confines me so i cant wander so much through the website as i would maybe like to and tell all kinds of naughty stories. But the so my first part really is we cant talk about the lost art of compromise unless we know something about the art of compromise. The second is to give some examples from the Constitutional Convention and as tony mentioned, president reagan pointed out that we were not born in simple harmony, there is something called faction and it is sewn in human nature, for all of you over there, and it is its in human nature and to expect we will live in a factious free world is to be living the impossible dream which is impossible. So i want to give some examples from the Constitutional Convention of how you deal with fraction without falling apart. And what we could learn from the Constitutional Convention and this day of celebration of the constitution, which signing is on september 17th. And the third and final point i i want to explore with you in particular, where do we ggo fro here. If we manage to show there is something called the art of compromise and it is lost, when did we lose it, how did we lose it, and what do we learn about that gaining and losing from our journey in the Constitutional Convention, why bother with that journey and where do we go from here. What can be retrieved if it ought to be retrieved. So those are the three main points i want to converse with you about. Now, what i would like to do, we have an hour together an hour and 15 minutes, but lets say we have an hour together. What i would love to do is speak for about half an hour, and then open it up and hear what you have to say and ask me questions. Ive often had this notion of standing in front of a podium and saying any questions. And i did that once when i retired from full time teaching at pepperdine and the first question that i got was how are you feeling . So i dont think ill quite open with any questions. So lets talk first then about this notion of the art of compromise. And it might come as a surprise, but the word compromise is made up of two parts. Com and prize. And com is latin and it means together. The idea of a association with. And prommize, if you pronounce it differently, it means promise. So compromise, if we just pars it, these a promise based on a agreement, notice that the word rule or orders or something is not in there. It is us together, figuring things out, were not giving up ourselves, but we are working things out as a community. It is compromise, now there is a lower meaning of compromise which simply means lets cut a deal and that is the usual understanding. I dont think that requires a particular art. I think that the art of compromise is something that requires when we say art, he we dont mean standing in front of an easel and painting or be artistic. It means there is a practical art that is that is how do i go about persuading people or explaining something to an audience that is not appealing to their lower nature, but try to explain and persuade. So i would like to emphasize that the lost art of compromise could be puts how we lost the art of seeking the highest level possible. When i was growing up, i remember being taught that politics was the art of the possible. The more i think about it, a better way and a improved way of putting it is the art of the best possible, so you have the art of the possible maybe just simply the ordinary politician who cuts a deal and runs. And gets this and to use a modern compression, kicks the can down the road. Just gets us out of a difficulty and doesnt care about the longterm side affects. That would be mean a mere politician, the art of compromise. Then there is the other utopian visionary person who only wants to engage in the art of the best. And that is a person who will never whose projects will never see the light of day. Unfortunately in our schools, particularly in our schools, we have this again unfortunate call to students that the way that they should view their education is to change the world. And i would say, why dont you change yourself and leave me alone. I dont see why your idea should be to change the world. What has the world done to you. And the understanding is make a difference. To heck on you. Make a difference to yourself. Why is utopian vision transforming the whole human race. What is wrong with that . Why cant you live with differences. And any way, so my point is that the art of compromise as i would like to see it is not simply the art of the best, or the art of the possible, but the art of the best possible. And so to fast forward to the opening lines of the preamble to the constitution, it is we the people in order to create a more Perfect Union. It doesnt say to create a Perfect Union. But it doesnt say we are going to put up with a union that we had before because we know there were problems with the union we had before and no union could be perfect so how do we make something more perfect. We could make it perhaps perfect if we got rid of liberty. Because why do we have faction . Because we are free to be naughty. So we could get rid of it and give everybody the same opinions, the same passions, the same interest and weve done with it, you think that is impossible. 1984, brave new world, those kind of things are in fact thinkable. What the opposite . In addition to what ive talked about, because ive made the opposites being the art of the best, the art of the possible, the art of the best possible and im going for the art of the best possible. And i think that is where the constitution manages to achieve. What else should we look at in terms of opposites as we go through this art of compromise. Often i learn by looking at opposites, what things might not might not be. So for example, this is the 230th anniversary but nothing particularly entertrinning tra entertaining or grabbing about 30 or if you are over 30 and dont trust anybody and dont trust anybody under 30 and you dont understand that joke unless you lived in the 60s. But there is nothing particularly interesting or compelling about 230. Maybe there le will be at 250. But there was something compelling at 150. And that was during the Great Depression and fdr. And he gave the 150th anniversary talk at of the constitution the signing of the constitution. And the phrase which he thought was the most important phrase in the entire constitution was we the people. And the way in which he and his associates interpreted that phrase is there aint nothing that we the people cant do. And that the constitution therefore is a vehicle, an empowering document through which we the people can do pretty much what we want to do. The metaphor that franklin dellen or roosevelt raised the war or crusade metaphor. That is the whole project of fdr is government is here to provide a solution. The chief executive is the officer or commanderinchief to provide that solution. And we the people give a mandate, look at the word mandate, man doesnt have to do with gender, it has to do with hand, mano and date doesnt have anything to do with dating. It has to do with to put to put in the hand of. To command. To mandate. And so what fdr looked upon in 150th anniversary of the constitution was a mandate from the people, an order from the people of the United States to use government through the constitution whose three important three little words were we the people to accomplish great ends and to alter the nature of society and transform society. It is interesting, as tony was reading the the reagan contribution to the 2 hundredth anniversary of the constitution which occurred during reagans presidency, that he too refers to we the people. But when reagan referred to we the people in his presidency, it is we the people tell the government what to do, rather than the government telling we the people what to do. It is not that we the people through government are going to do things, but reagan is making the case that the government of we the people is a limb ilted government. What fdr is doing by referring to we the people, it is a government which is a living constitution which can do pretty much what we mandate the government. So it is a very interest conversations i hope that we can have concerning the best, which is possible, the idea of the possible, the idea of the best, and this notion of, lets say, consent, which i think which i think is a very important concept which emerges from the idea of compromise. In other words, there is no idea of mandate in a compromise. There is no idea of ruling. There is an idea of coming together and consenting and what is it that makes a compromise work . We promise. Or we agree. The word mandate has the implication of i order you to do this. So i dont think that we could have the art of compromise unless we have a commitment to the notion of a consensus or at least to consent. And this is particularly important in the government which is inclined to being a democratic republic. Which relies on consent. Thus if you have a whole bunch of different people together and you are going to say we are a government by consent, it is going to be extremely difficult to pull that off. Lets us remember, one of the things that were celebrating today is that no government, you might say well this is not something you celebrate, but if i finish this sentence you will figure it out. That no government in the history of the world has lasted forever. And the worst form of government failure is a civil war. And that means that the people are unwilling to come together and be one. They would rather divorce. And i think that is something which is an important point to think about. Let me end this first part dealing with the practical arts and sciences, fdr, reagan, compromise, mandate, consent, with a matrix, and a matrix you could put up like this consent, like it, lets say, compromise, like it. Compromise, dont like it. Why would anybody in their right mind not like compromise. The idea is because it settles for less than the best. It also creates perhaps imprecise government and it producing maybe an ungovernable situations and it may even lead to a situation where we do kick the can down the road, so why would somebody not like compromise . Because it seems to suggest that were dropped our values. Or weve or were no longer interested in the right thing. And as is that something that we want to teach our children and become educated. Dont do the right thing. Do near the right thing. So that would be something why you wouldnt like compromise. But well get to that in the last section. Then if we the other parts of the matrix would be war. Consent in war. Consent i like. Concept i dont like. Or compromise i like, or compromise i dont like. War, i like. Who would want to like war. The answer is wiping out war on poverty, war on obesity, war on children who cant read, war on whatever. But politics becomes a war. It becomes the war metaphor and thus we judge our institutions in accordance with whether they could win this war or solve that problem. Who would like war . Those who want to solve problems. Who dont who doesnt what kind of person would not like war . Those who think that wed rather work it out between ourselves, consent, muddle through than to have orders say delivered by a judiciary, orders through executive orders, orders through a bureaucracy, et cetera. So let me leave you with that. The substantive part im going to cut and rely on you to ask me some questions on this. But i want to cover three points. And that comes to the website. When it says explore the american founding up there, you could see there is actually four website but im going to cut one of them. Constitutional convention, the federalist antifederalist debates and the radification of the constitution and the bill of rights. Those are the four founding documents and what were looking at which i will call the constitution for this evening. And what we want to look at is to what extent the art of compromise in the high sense being there and in what sense is the art of compromise in the low sense of how to deal there, to what extent is compromise not there at all and we can in fact defend that. The Constitutional Convention, tony, if we were to turn to the four act drama, i have broken the Constitutional Convention into a four act drama, because if you pick up the debates, it is about a thousand pages and people will roll their eyes and sometimes including me, who have spent my entire life trying to read them. And so not as a substitute as cliff notes but as a way of trying to encourage people to stay the course, to stick with the material. I have broken it down into a four act drama. It is almost sounds shakespearean or plat onic. The answer is yes. I think what matters as put together is report about the founders creating the constitution rising to that level. It is a wonderful piece of work. And last year for those of you who were here, i think we give that book out or was it the year before, i the new edition of that and that is a that is aavailable for practically nothing. And i dont get anything as a result, which is my contribution to a country that decided to have me. And i wont go into further immigration stories at this particular stage of the year. But i am an imgants. Along by the way with 20 of those who signed the constitution. Act one, the alternative plans. Well you cant have them all. So what is going on . Well, at first of all, it is laying down the rules. Laying down what kind of rules. Well conversations dont happen, the compromises just dont happen. You got to make sure that there are rules laid down that people at least appear that they are