Im a senior fellow here at aei and the cultural and constitutional program. Im joined on this panel by two very distinguished writers, authors, thinkers. And im virtually blind from the late. So let me introduce our speakers Peter Berkowitz is the ted and diane taub, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at stanford university. He has served as the director of the state departments policy staff and is executive secretary of the departments commission on unalienable. He is a 2017 winner of the bradley prize. He studies and writes about, among other things, constitutional conservativism and, progressivism in the United States, liberal National Security and law and middle east politics. He is the author and of numerous volumes with the most relevant for todays discussion. The book constitutional liberty, selfgovernment, political moderation, another book, virtue and the making modern liberalism and edited volume renewing the american tradition. Joining peter i is bryan garsten, whos a of Political Science in the humanities, the chair of the Humanities Program at yale. He is author of saving persuasion a defense of rhetoric and judgment, as well as articles on political rhetoric and deliberation. The meaning of representative government, the relationship of politics and religion. And brian is now finishing a book called heart of a heartless world. The examines the ethical, political and religious core of the early 19th century liberalism in the united and france. Maybe and updated for this century. His writing has won numerous, including the first book prize, the foundation of political theory section in the american Political Science association. He has served as director of the undergraduate studies for yales major in ethics, politics and economics and the director of graduate studies, the department of Political Science and of no less importance for todays discussion. In 2016, he founded the organizations an effort citizens thinkers Writers Program for students in the haven public schools. And with that, im going to turn microphone and the podium to peter. Okay. First, i too want to say thank you to you, yuval adam, 13. Its good to be on a panel with. Two old friends, gary and brian. Today, im going to briefly enumerate three Common Misconceptions about declaration of independence put forward grand historical claim, and then once again briefly enumerate six enduring lessons surrounding the declarations. But a little background and all of that in 10 to 12 minutes. And we need appreciate i think that the us declaration of independence changed the course of democracy. The west before the and the creation of the United States before the declaration, the creation of the United States democracy had a bad was thought to a regime that was prone to descent into demagoguery and dictatorship. After declaration of independence, after the birth, the United States and democracy acquired a good name. It became a an essential ingredient of political justice around the world. How did that happen . It happened in significant measure because of the alliance that the declaration of independence, right between. Young democracy and rights, fundamental rights, natural rights, as theyre called in the declaration of independence, unalienable rights. That alliance was so successful, as in a way gordon wood has pointed out that the alliance itself acquired the name democracy. But theres a cost in that. And my judgment, simplification. The cost is that we lose sometimes of the tensions within the regime that i think is more accurately liberal democracy. We lose sight the tension between rights and democratic government. We also lose sight of the advantages that a regime enjoys because it protects, because affirms that rights are shared by all and it because protects them and as as the Previous Panel indicated and as as gordon wood indicated as well, i think we would benefit greatly by a serious return to the study of the declaration of independence. Yes, indeed, i would put it at the center of of civic, which is liberal education. And in so doing i think that could help temper some of the division, the discord and the dysfunction of american Politics Today before i get to my lists, clarify a few terms that vindicate these elements this liberty ive ive suggested that our regime more precisely because democracy liberal and liberal democracy of course denotes Freedom Democracy of course comes from as a greek compound two elements the people rule it doesnt follow from the idea that people rule that they will protect individual rights. All majority can be liberal or not. Majorities can provide the poor or not. Majorities can choose to rule directly or indirectly. They can also choose to respect rights that are shared equally by all. Thats an achievement you could call it also in innovation the United States as as Abraham Lincoln would many decades later, was first regime ever anywhere that was brought into existence based on this universal claim. Weve already spoken about how the declaration understood these certain selfevident truths and its having mansfield whats them selfevident half. First i want to say about the the truth of the declaration that they arise out of the merging really of three at least three traditions. One is the biblical tradition shared widely at the time the american founding, which and this biblical tradition at its Founding Mission taught that all human are created in gods image. That, and i think perhaps the most significant teaching in the west about about equality. This idea was shared widely and overwhelmingly protestant america in the 18th century. Second, of course, the civic republican tradition emphasized and engaged public spirited citizens, citizens henry that would be involved in the and up to and including fighting for its freedom and the third tradition is lets call it the modern tradition of freedom the core conviction of the modern tradition of freedom is that human beings are by nature, free and equal. This was not a central view in greek democracy. This was not a central view in the world of the medieval world. And you might say i would say its implicit the biblical view, but it only articulated it is only affirmed as a principle. The founding of a nation for the first time with the united. By the way, what are these selfevident truths that are listed on in the declaration that we are equal in . One most important respect in terms of unalienable rights in many ways and in a variety of ways are unequal. But in this crucial way, equal a second selfevident truth. Governments purpose is to secure these rights. Its primary. Third, just adjust government. Our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and the final one. When government proves destructive of these ends, the end being securing our liberty, people may alter or abolish government that secures rights. I want to Say Something about. Philosophical foundations. Picking up on some remarks of daniel. Its true that the declaration of independence indicates, you might say metaphysical or theological foundations for for unalienable rights. The that all human beings share. But the declaration of independence also points away them to this formulation. We hold these to be selfevident. Its a funny formulation. Its a kind of not double in daniel sense the double another sense you can assert that something selfevident we hold to be selfevident. What i think is indicated by saying we hold to be selfevident is that these beliefs are widely shared in america today. We may have differences, we may have philosophy differences, but we, the people do in fact hold them, by the way, consistent. The point that bryan makes in his paper about burke, his speech on conciliation, on on americans, on america. Burke that the love of freedom is the predominant feature of the american sensibility and. I think thats right okay so those are the selfevident truths metaphysical are pointed to but also emphasized is that there we do in fact affirm them in circles these days for some time a variety, in my opinion misconception persons have been promulgated and become popular. I mentioned three. One is a of disdain and dismiss strategy and one finds versions of it on the right and on the left. The right wing says that that unalienable rights, the declarations unalienable are based on false. False and pernicious conception, that produces radical individualism atomism and a demand pure freedom thats an unrealistic and destructive desire to be free of all constraints subject to no authorities. The left version also says that the declarations view is based on a false, permanent and pernicious. But this time one that perpetuates races and sexism and sweeping inequalities in wealth, status and that one strange aspect of these misconceptions is that actually the declaration of independence. Of independence is unalienable truths actually protect that goods affirmed by both right and left that individual rights limited government, which they require are actually the best security for commune for for parents control over the education of their children and for the opportunities of people in a Diverse Society to pursue what. They regard as as the demands of god or their understanding of human excellence and the virtues. Similarly similarly for for the left america made extraordinary strides. Its now 200, 250 years of history and including more and more people and enabling more and more people to enjoy the benefits of rights. The second error call it the rousseau gambit. It radicalized the notion of tacit consent. Its also assumed by the declaration, and it ascribes democratic supremacy to and Public Policies that intellectuals have derived in the privacy of their study or or their seminar rooms, saying that democracy has a certain logic and structure. We, the intellectuals, can it. And those poor people who often go to the ballot box and vote for measures of which we disapprove, those people, those majorities are antidemocratic. We are more democratic. By the way, those majorities may be wrong, but it is a great to call the preferences of majorities. Its another good reason for distinguishing or speaking of liberal democracy, that majorities can in illiberal directions. And the third misconception i think, is is the re founding fallacy. And it supposes that if one founding was good, many re founding be wonderful. But but this i think this way of thinking fails to take seriously the high bar that the declaration sets for founding. And that is if you find yourself the declarations language an absolute despotism that irreversibly destroys the conditions for exercising basic and fund of fundamental freedoms. Then its time for revolution or re finding re founding. And also the fascination with re founding also blurs the the declarations distinct and between between principles that are enduring and ordinary legislation and, ordinary reforms. It also erodes commitment and gratitude for what was achieved in 1776. So much for misconceptions. Three misconceptions want to Say Something now briefly about about that one historical claim i mentioned historical claim the grand historical claim is this the time and again eminent reformers in the american political tradition have advance the cause. Individual, individual freedom and equality law by drawing on the declaration explicitly by and by doing this, they effectuate and vindicate it rather than replace, rewrite or revolt against america. 17 1776 founding. What do i have in mind very briefly, in 1848, Elizabeth Cady stantons declaration of sentiments is in essence a rewrite of i said rewriting is a restatement of the principles of the declaration of independence. But with respect to women making the argument that all those individual rights are of necessity ours to in other words it not an overt overthrow of the declaration of independence, but a fulfillment of the promise of the declaration of independence writing in the 1850s, Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd garrison make same argument writing in the 1860s. So Abraham Lincoln, right . Sorry douglass and garrison and lincoln against slavery. What is necessary is not an overthrowing of the declarations ideas overthrow of the constitution what is necessary is at last living up to them. Or, as lincoln says at gettysburg a rededication to to the principles freedom as spelled out in the declaration. And now rapid fire. Six notes enduring lessons that i think will that would enable to better grasp uphold the principles the declaration and improve an america thats dedicated to them. I will just assert them here. One lesson comes from we can learn from facilities democracies. Achievements are bound up with a common heritage that shapes citizens and unites the people. We mustnt forget that in upholding the principles of the declaration. A second lesson comes from plato that democracy encourages vices that undercut the peoples rule. A third lesson from aristotle to enjoy the benefits and contain the flaws of democracy. Democracy must be combined with other just if partial and complete claims to rule point that was made in a different way by gordon wood fourth, a madisonian. Three endemics cratic regimes must find means for countering democracy is characteristic elements, and these measures must be consistent with the peoples and consistent with the limits on government imposed individual rights. Fifth, tocqueville gives us lesson the Political Freedom offers a vital counterweight to the vices spawned by democracy, not least of the opportunities it provides to exercise selfgovernment outside of formal political institutions. And finally, a lesson. One of the reasons that that free and democratic societies need to vigorously protect of speech is because Free Democratic societies need, a healthy Progressive Party and a healthy conservative party that is a Healthy Party thats focused on improvement and a Healthy Party thats focused on preserving. It would be good if each one of us could do both, but such are the complexities of political life that we need to. We generally need specialize. Ill by suggesting that no small part of the discord and dysfunction of the present moment comes from failure of our educational system. No small part of the failure of educational system has to with Civic Education, the true, the true and complete Civic Education in a free and democratic nation is liberal education and liberal liberal education in america would put back at the center a study the declaration of independence, meaning the principles of freedom and the constitution. That was to institutional lives those principles. Thank you. Its a real pleasure to be here to be part of this really important marking of a moment in the american history. So let me thank a i mean, youve all and all the others involved in this for including look, its only to wonder after 250 years how long this will last. You know, machiavelli and the renaissance famously imagined the possibility of a perpetual republic. But the most reliable prediction about any country or any state of affairs at all is the one that lincoln grappled with at the end of a speech in wisconsin in 1850, when he remarked on the saying, this, too, shall pass away. Its doubtful that country has finally discovered an escape from that ultimate fate, but still even if we were to begin with fatalistic, long term, we might. At what stage in the life of our country we where do we find ourselves today . Because if the United States were to last, for example, as long as ancient sparta did, this hundred and 50th anniversary, would mark not even halfway through lifetime, its possible that future historians will look back and regard of our political struggles and disappointments as merely one crisis among many, perhaps part of the last part of the first working out of the principles of the founding. After all in 1852, when the country was just 76 years old, it must have seemed to many observers that the american experiment was nearing its end. The republic had failed to fully enact its founding ideals was on the verge of a bloody civil war. But as Frederick Douglass, who had the most reason to know, the countrys failures, to assert the hypocrisy of the declaration asked his audience and eight year he asked his audience to imagine a longer history a future for the country. There is consolation, he said, and the thought that america is a young so the question for us is whether we can still conceive of america as young. And in my for this volume i suggest that it may be easier to think that way if we rediscover a feature of Democratic Politics that was once familiar but is now less often. And that is a tendency democracies to fall into cycles or patterns of institutional dysfunction, popular discontent followed by reform now stated in that way. The point is familiar and they seem bland. But it seems to me that given the patterns of history, the way they deserve promises to free us from some of the dangerous silly selffulfilling disappointment that can arise from the expectation of a simpler more direct movement in the direction progress. Even those who hope that the cycles of discontent and reform spiral upward to follow the arc of the moral universe towards, justice can recognize that is a certain rhythm to democratic that must be anticipated and accommodated, that cant eliminated entirely, but perhaps can be tamed constitutional. And whether we view the fits and starts of Democratic Politics as ultimately progressive or merely cyclical or as having some other distinctive rhythm, we can begin to try to situate ourselves in what the political scientist, my colleague stephen skowronek, has called political time and what i want to