we did not have a plan. i wrote a book, ok? >> that is it. >> for the past 30 years, the video library is your free resource for politics, congress, and washington public affairs. find it in c-span's video library at c-span.org. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> american history tv, from the ronald reagan presidential library in california, a constitution day lecture entitled the lost art of compromise. discussesty professor compromises in the framing of the u.s. constitution and argues leaders couldary

emulate the example set by the founders. the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute hosted this event, just over an hour. >> i am the chief learning operations officer and on behalf of all of our colleagues here at the foundation and the library museum, i want to welcome you to tonight's constitution day lecture. every event weat do here at the ronald reagan presidential library, we like to start each program with the pledge of allegiance, especially today in honor of the 16th anniversary of 9/11. we want to pay our respects to all the men women who fight 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, individual come -- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you very much. please be seated.

i want to start off by knology our partners in planning today's events. rosemary and beatrice, thank you so much for the generous reception that happened before hand. it is always an honor to work with the two of you and your commitment to education and this place is truly remarkable. we are honored to work with you in the republican women -- to celebrate the importance of the constitution. so thank you. at the end of this evening, courtesy of our friends at the ashbrook center, we have copies of a book edited and selected and introduced by dr. gordon lloyd. i believe we have enough copies for everyone in the audience. he'll be signing that for the audience tonight. in addition to free food, the audience gets a free door prize. to celebrate the blessings of liberty them that book?

the230th anniversary of signing of the constitution. president reagan were here in this room, i think you would be happy to know we have all gathered today to mark the occasion. one of the quotes president wegan was famous for was -- do not pass freedom to our children in the bloodstream. it must be passed for and protected. to talks this is used about defense. it is used to defend defense. but defense is not the only way to preserve freedom. just like a football team, it does not matter how great your defenses if the offense cannot put points on the board. -- ider education today, dr. gordon lloyd would play the role of quarterback, plus -- passing freedom from one generation to the next.

as he will see from his talk tonight, he will be the hall of famer on that team. tonight is the lost art of compromise. since the beginning of the country, we have in some ways been defined by opposing factions. pitchers and loyalists, the north versus the south, big city versus the countryside, old versus young, good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny, red and blue states, republicans versus democrats, and the giants versus the dodgers. past couple of decades, our nation has become increasingly polarized politically to the point that inely working with someone the office of a party could mean the election. on the anniversary of the constitution, what can we learn about whatomise and it means in the spirit of something greater than any one of us, and the american idea

-- lumbee forlong anyone of us were here? before i introduce dr. laura, i want to read a brief excerpt from president reagan'speech 30 years ago on the anniversary of the constitution. he said to look back at the difficulties faced and surmounted, it can only give us perspective on the present. , isherry and, every age prone to think of itself as beset been usual and particular threatening difficulties. to look back on the past as a golden age were politics were not so divisive and problems did not seem so did dashti tractable. we are sometimes attempted to thing of the birth of our country as one such age, harmony and cooperation. the constitution and our government were born in crisis. it was not the absence of problems that won the day in

1787. it was the presence of something higher. democraticof government found on the self-evident truths that still resounded in independence hall. it was that ideal proclaimed so proudly in this hall that enabled them to rise above self-interest and transcend and create this document, this constitution that would profoundly and forever alter not just these united states, but the world. a is my pleasure to introduce man who knows a thing or two about the document and the impact it has had on the united states, i probably call him my friend, america's professor, the unprofessional -- unforgettable dr. gordon lloyd. >> thank you. that is very good. i want to reiterate what was on thanking our benefactors and i also want to thank you for

eveningut on this balmy to hear about the constitution and to see friendly faces as well as old faces. that i hope are still friendly. the own faces i see from year-to-year, they seem to get younger. which i think is a good sign. still, i havesor three points to make. always doise i can one a, one b, to see, 3-d, and straight out of it. i want torst issue thee is the whole notion of art of compromise. tony gave me the copy of the whichrt of compromise, confines me so i cannot wonder

so much through the website as i would like to and tell all kinds of naughty stories. is west point really cannot talk about the lost art of compromise unless we know something about the art of compromise. the second is to give some example from the constitutional convention. mentioned, president reagan pointed out we were not born in simple harmony. there is something called faction. nature, forn human it is inu over there, human nature and to expect that we will live in this faction free world is to be living the impossible dream, which is impossible.

i want to give examples from the constitutional convention of how you deal with faction without falling apart. what we can learn from the andtitutional convention this day of celebration of the and the signing is on september 17. the third and final point i want to explore with you in , where do we go from here? to show that there is something called the art of it is lost, when is lost, did we lose it, how did we lose it, and what to we learn about that, gaining or losing from our journey at the constitutional convention? why bother -- why bother with the journey and where do we go from here? what can be retrieved if it ought to be retrieved? that iee main points

want to converse with you about. we have one hour together. what i would love to do is to sk for about half an hour and then open it up and hear what you have to say. i've often had this notion of standing in front of a podium and saying "any questions?" retiredd that when i from full-time teaching at pepperdine. the first question i got was how are you feeling? [laughter] so i don't think i will quite open with any questions. talk first then of this notion of the art of compromise. as a surprise, but

the word compromise is made of com andts -- promise. com is latin and it means together, the idea of association with. promise, if you pronounce it definitely, it means promise. if just part of it based onromise agreement. notice that rule or order is not in there. it is us figuring things out. we are not giving up ourselves, but we are working things out as a community. there is a lower meaning of compromise which simply means cut a deal. say, theis, shall we

usual understanding. how do i go about persuading people or explaining something to an audience that is not appealing to their lower nature but trying to blame and persuade -- to explain and persuade. art of compromise can be put have we lost the art of seeking the highest level possible? up, i was growing remember being taught that politics was the art of the possible.

the more i think of it, the improved way of putting it is the art of the best possible. the art of the possible is maybe the ordinary politician cuts the deal and runs and, to use a modern expression, kicks the can down the road. doesn't really care about the long-term side effects. that would be a mere politician. unfortunately, in our schools, particularly in our schools, we have this unfortunate call to students that the way that they should view their education is

to change the world. i would say why don't you change yourself and leave me alone? i don't see why your idea should be to change the world. what has the world done to you? the other understanding is make a difference. to heck on you. make a difference to yourselves. what is the utopian vision of transforming the whole human race? what's wrong with that? why can't you live with differences? is the art ofnt compromise, as i would like to of it is not simply the art the best or the art of the possible, but the art of the best possible. so too fast forward to the ofning lines to the preamble the constitution, it is "we the

people, in order to create a more perfect union," it does not say to create a perfect union. but it doesn't say we will put up with the union we had before. because we know there were problems with the union we had before. union can beno perfect. so how do we make something more perfect? we could make it perhaps perfect if we got rid of liberty. why do we have faction? because we are free to be naughty. of it andd get rid give everybody the same interest, the same passion. "brave new world," those things are thinkable. int is opted -- opposite addition to what i've mentioned. art of of the best, the the possible, the art of the

best possible and i am going for the art of the best possible. i think that is what the constitution managers to achieve. what else should we look at in terms of opposites when we look at the art of compromise? aten, i learn by looking opposites, where things might not be. the 230the, this is anniversary, but there is nothing part it can really entertaining or graphic about 30. under 30, you don't trust anybody over 30. and if you are over 30, you don't trust anybody under 30. and you won't understand that joke unless you live in the 1960's. compelling about 230. maybe at 250. that there was something compelling at 150. and that was during the great depression and fdr.

he gave the 150th anniversary of the signing of the constitution in a frame that he thought was the most important phrase, "we the people." the way in which he and his associates interpreted that phrase is there ain't nothing we the people can't do. vehicle, an empowering document, through which we the people can do pretty much what we want to do. the metaphor that frank lynn delano roosevelt raised was what i would call the war metaphor, the crusade myth. -- crusade metaphor. the whole project of fdr is to provide a solution. the chief executive is the

commander in chief to provide that solution. we the people give a mandate. --k up the word of mandate look up the word "mandate." "man" has nothing to do with man. it is mano. " doesn't have anything to do with dating. it is to command. roosevelt was looking for was a mandate from the people, and order of the people usehe united states to government, through the constitution, whose three important words, three little words, was "we the people," to a nd and toreat e alter society and transform society. it's interesting when tony was reading the reagan contribution

to the 200th anniversary of the constitution, which occurred during reagan's presidency, that he, too, refers to we the people. but when reagan refers to we the people in his presidency, it's we the people tell the government tell the government people tell- we the the government want to do, not government tells we the people it to do. what fdr is doing is referring to we the people is a government which is a living constitution which can do pretty much anything we mandate. so these are interesting conversations we can have concerning the best which is possible, the idea of the possible, the idea of the best. say,'ss notion of

consent, which i think is a very important concept which emerges from the idea of compromise. 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." i don't think we can have the art of compromise unless we have a commitment to the notion of a consensus or at least to consent. this is particularly important in a government which is inclined to being a democratic republic. it relies on consent. . if you have a whole but to different people together and you are saying we will be a government by consent, it will

be extremely difficult upon that off. let us remember one of the things we are celebrating today is that no government -- you might say this is not something you celebrate, but you will figure it out -- that no government in the history of the world has lasted forever. governmentst form of failure is a civil war. and that means that the people are unwilling to come together and be one. they would rather divorce. 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, with a matrix you could put up like this.

didromise, like it compromise, don't like it. why would anybody in their right mind not like compromise? it creates perhaps imprecise producers maybe an ungovernable situation. in fact, it may even lead to a situation where we do kick the can down the road. why would someone not like compromise? because it seems to suggest that wehave dropped our values or are no longer interested in the right thing. and is that something we want to cheech -- to teach our children? don't do the right thing. do near the right thing. so that is somebody who wouldn't like compromise.

we will get to that the last section. then other parts of the matrix would be war. consent, i like. consent, i don't like. compromise, i like. compromise, i don't like. war, i like. who would like to like war? war onwer is wiping out poverty, war on obesity, war on children who can't read, war on whatever, but politics becomes war. metaphor. the war we judge our institutions in accordance with whether they can win this war or solve that problem. so who would like war? those who want to solve problems. who don't -- well kind of person would not like war? those who think that we would rather work it out between --selves, consent modeled consent, muddled through, then

say orders delivered by judiciary, orders through executive orders, orders through a bureaucracy, etc. so let me leave you with that. part i'm going to rely on you to ask you some questions on this. but i want to cover three points. that comes to the website. it says explore the american founded. ctually for websites, but i will cut one of them. constitutional convention, the ratification of the constitution and the bill of rights. those are the four founding documents. i will call the constitution for this evening. what we want to look at is to what extent is the art of compromise in the high sense being there? and in what sense is the art of compromise in the low sense of cut a deal there?

to what extent is compromise not there at all and we can, in fact, if in that -- defend that? the constitutional convention, tony, if we were to turn to the four app drama. i've broken down the constitutional convention into a four act drama. pagesbates is about 50 and people will roll their eyes, sometimes including me, who spent my entire life trying to read them. so not as a substitute as cliff notes, but as a way to trying to encourage people to stay the course, to stick to the material. i have broken it down into a four-act drama. it almost sounds shakespearean or platonic. yes, i think what matters, what i put together is a report the

fathers writing the constitution rises to that level. it is a wonderful piece of work. last year, for those of you who that book we gave out. it the year before. i don't get anything as a result. it's my contribution for a country that chose to have me. i am an immigrant. alone, by the way, with 20% of those who signed the constitution. act one, the alternative lands. you can't have them all. what's going on? first of all is laying down the rules. what kind of rules?

compromises don't have them. you have to make sure there are rules laid down, that people at least appear that they are listening. somebodyall asleep, next to them will nudge them. they will wake up for that moment and smile at you and think that you didn't notice. by laying down the rules -- it's, like, no one shall spate twice unless someone has spaken first. those types of rules. it is very important. compromise and conversations -- not you. it.l just ignore you, c-span. point.make a what -- why are they here?

they are here to make a whole perfect union. from what? the articles of confederation. according to madison, what is wrong? it has a structural problem. what is that structural problem? "we the people" does not fit into it. why not? because it is a legal alliance between 13 previous states. we the people fitted to each state. there are other people who go there not to change that structural issue, but to change the powers, to give congress more powers. how will they vote, they being the delegates chosen? how will they vote at the convention? miramar suggested that james madison tackle this straight on. what do you mean? what i mean is this. we themean to have " people" into the equation, that

means we will provide proportional representation, representation based on the people rather than representation based on the states, so that the people of virginia, the people of pennsylvania should have more representation than the people of rhode island. they don't bother to show up anyway. or the people of new hampshire. so we want to have popular representation rather than one state, one vote. so why don't we start away with of how we run the convention? if you do that right at the beginning, everybody will go home. persuade we tried to the delegates from delaware and new hampshire to give that principle and see the art of

compromise on a system based on "we the people." in other words, we have to educate them on how to be americans. that will be a long education. so madison seduces the virginia plan. are the people more happy in small states than large states? people are happier in small communities where they know each other, look out for each other madison says all the better to shaft you, my dear. people know all your business and, therefore, the -- they will not leave you alone. so should we go for small communities joined together loosely or should we go for one large community whereby people can be spread out? they'dspread people out, be more likely to compromise rather than to add vacate to their own little position with

own their own little territory. their own little position within their own little territory. very difficult. one, madison act tends to hold sway. but he is not holding sway all the way. in act 2, we get a compromise. it is called the connecticut compromise. what are they suggesting? they are suggesting toward the end of act 2, why don't -- it's not just let's make a deal. viathe people represented in the house and let the states be represented in the senate. that would be a simple deal. let's go home. but the art of compromise is can we come up with an accommodation, true consent that we could agree to, which perhaps we hadn't thought of before? and this is where we get the

connecticut compromise. will bet we say that we partly state-based for certain things and partly nationally-based for other things? what would be state-based for? controlling crime, for example. education another. another would be health and welfare issues. what would we be interested in doing together? things of the general welfare,, defense. could we perhaps -- common defense. to anwe perhaps come associated agreement, not just cutting the differences, but seeing that as a new principal, where the senate represents the states and protects the states and the house represents the people and represents the people, but we understand the federal government is not going to do everything. after finally agreed to

the 44 days of the 88 days that they were there together. there were some downsides. just so happened, some bad days. on thetake a look day decision day connecticut ampromise, it was accepted on 5-4-1 vote. rhode island never showed up. that brings us down to 12. what's next? new hampshire hadn't shown up yet because it did not have any money. you can't compromise if you don't show up. ticked off. hamilton left because he was bored. call me when you get serious. and --the rest of the new york

threetion -- you have members of the new york delegation, hamilton and to others. the other two were there to output him. since hamilton left and the other two delegates didn't like the way the compromise is going, partly national, partly federal, they left in disgust. nother -- another limitation to the art of compromise. if you are so bound to the decision you entered with that no persuasion could move you, then you get on your high horse and i just say, well, i'm sorry, i'll abstain. but you are so ticked off, you walk out, then you have to ask how persuasive can you be if you walk out? why don't you just bang your shoe on the table while you are at it? be in the have to

1950's to figure out that one. i'm talking to an older audience. i will talk to the young audience soon. before we m ove -- before we limitations. you can't come from eyes if you don't show up. you can't compromise if you leave in a huff -- you can't compromise if you don't show up. you can't compromise if you leave in a huff. acompromise would be like 10-0 vote or a 9-1 vote. but 5-4-1? that is just about as close as you can get. how can you call that a company must? go answer is a made for we by the higher level, not just cutting a deal, but the idea of thinking outside of the box, thinking in a way differently --

can we pursue a different path? five say yes. for say no. among the four delegations that say no is virginia and madison doesn't like it. he doesn't like the vote. so a question comes to mr. madison. what do we do? and here is a very important part of the art of compromise. do you go out in a half? huff?a do you go to the streets? do you hire a lawyer? the prayer which says i accept those things which i cannot change? the serenity prayer. extremelymes that is difficult to do if you enter the convention trying to change things fundamentally, which madison wanted to do. so he had to say the serenity prayer. and he accepted it and moved on.

and then that permitted different issues to come up. i will talk to two last examples before i move to the final part, point three. and that is a committee is created. first, a committee is created called committee on detail, a five-member committee which provides the first draft of the constitution. and that is what the delegates go through in act 3. a laborious process. requires detail. of all of the 11 delegations that were regularly there, there is one delegation, the members of which are always in attendance -- south carolina.

you get an incredible amount of leverage when you're always there. and i always wonder how come south carolina managed to leverage its week moral persuasion on slavery into position within the whole assembly? one answer is folks wanted union. so if you want union, you may have to pay a price that you otherwise would not want to pay. and south carolina also was in alsosh who -- was influential because all the delegates were always there. member oford from a delegationarolina

right before it met. if this draft of the constitution comes up with anything that is inclined toward the emancipation of slaves or inclined toward ending slavery in any way, south carolina shall not ratify. the south carolina delegation shall not sign. that's pretty tough. how do you engage in compromise when you are in fact being threatened? or what are you willing to give up in order to save the union or have a more perfect union. -- is a more perfect union better than no union at all? sometimes the choices in life are between terrible and terribler. right? that's -- now i am speaking to

the young. something to look forward to. at this very moment, you are doing something which the next generation will find an progressive and blame you -- un progressive and blame you for being shortsighted. i'm not happy. no doubt, we will move on. but the message that came out on committee on detail is that congress shall never, ever have the power to control the slave trade. ever. that's south carolina. why is this so important? -- because both sides on the slavery question, both realized that what happened to the slave trade was a harbinger of what would happen to slavery. look add ae to

committee report and see if it passes easily in the full house or whether it gets stopped. if you look at the month of august, where they go through detail, things fail regularly, except for that clause which says congress shall never, ever control the slave trade, ever. s put up. fuss wa what happened. a compromise was reached. create a committee. one from each state. from fairly clear to me reading these debates that madison wanted the slave trade to end right then and there. he was willing to compromise

committee for 18. new millennium, new birth of freedom. e comes out with that report. in's end the slave trade 1800. so first you have never ever. now,here, you have madison willing to go to 1800. so what does south carolina do? they say how about 1808? and madison is furious. never? 1808? but if you read history today, you would think that the framers enshrine slavery through the slave trade. so the question is what did they 1808?ween 1789 and

lots. was a law passed banning the slave trade. what is that tell you? what the compromise and what not to compromise. what i have told you about the constitution, demonstrating the art of the best that is possible, the art of compromise in the highest sense. but i'm wondering whether that compromise presupposes a certain condition something that we all agree on but will not compromise. an example. as part of the constitution, it's is there shall be no titles of nobility. four.sn't say except we will not compromise on that. so we will not compromise on

feudalism. nosays rpetty much -- primogeniture. primogeniture means that land will not be passed to the firstborn male. that's a huge alteration in property rights. it says we shall have no monarchy. it doesn't say we will have a limited market -- monarchy or a compromise monarchy. it says no monarchy. so there are certain things, monarchy, futile is where it -- feudalism with an asterix, and we shall have no established religion. we once agree on things that we won't compromise on. definehat is easier to issues that you can't compromise on. what was my asterisk? it was on feudalism.

one of the points i have been wrestling is is how come this new world that is america and the caribbean, how come there was one area that they brought from the old world? they didn't bring established religion. they didn't bring monarchy. brought a new form of feudalism, which was slavery. is thatuestion becomes going to go away naturally? for, as i can put it later on, can we have this compromise -- half free/half slave? and the answer is no care you can't have it as a permanent solution to be half free and half slave. you have to be totally free and totally slave. now we can compromise. and i think the framers -- i think lincoln would agree with me -- the framers tried to put

slavery on the course of extinction. but not each generation is better than the previous one. for example, we like to think the 20th century is important, but it had the holocaust. it had some of the things. not necessarily better than the 19 century. not necessarily better. we may have this progressive view of history, the history evolves -- oh, you are on the right side of history! what the heck does that mean? history always makes the correct decision? and by the way, what is history? who is history? i haven't met him? i haven't met her. hello, history come how are you? somehow, history makes a .eftward march , evolving how many times have you seen that people don't necessarily involve well?

and i don't mean that we grow old well. human nature does not necessarily develop well. so let me conclude. where do we go from here? i could go on and on and on and keep you from asking a question. but i will not do that. i think that those who see the -- the solution to where we are -- red state/blue state -- all over the darn place -- how do we end that? one solution that is being tossed around quite a bit is that we should give up on congress. which hasstitution da ind it -- passed its

fact, the entire constitutiony. . we should shred the constitution and trade congress. why? because we are living in a world where problems have to be solved. what i am suggesting, if you believe in the art of compromise, than what you are thinking about is that the role of politics is to settle issues, not to solve problems. it is to settle issues. but am i kicking down the can down the road for the next generation? or just give them something to do? [laughter] you can't settle everything. that means i can settle for you, the next generation, before you are even born? i can solve the problem before you are even born? if life belongs to the living, than the living have to grow up and understand the art of compromise for themselves and not just say i'm traumatized.

you don't need the art of compromise. you need the science of therapy. [laughter] where do we go from here. say just do away with this nonsense of talking about a congress. what do they do anything? we elected them. they do nothing. what are they supposed to do? solve problems. why don't we say settle issues instead of solve problems? we need to streamline executive and get things done and have nobody stand in the president's way. i've heard that from drop supporters. i heard that from obama supporters. the congressem is standing in the way of the president. how is the president to rule? however the president wants to rule. after all, we are at war. [laughter]

at what? bring up the latest that's what we're going to do. we are going to solve stupidity. we are going to solve this. we are at war. i don't believe on that solution, that we rely on the executive. i'm not particularly interested in letting the jury's -- the judiciary -- they have a role to play, an important role, but not in jumping into the system in deciding ahead of time what we the people can or cannot do. so what will you suggest? well, it's a long project. we the people have to start at the beginning. where is it? where do we start? we start in the schools. and what do we do in the schools? we have to realize that we have

to teach -- not just how to teach, but what to teach. and something like this. i left a very straightforward. i could go on for ages. i don't need much of a windup. i have found teachers telling me they find it helpful. approach,he textual the biography approach, the i was their approach -- i don't know what it will take, what turns people around, but people have to turn around. just in little pieces here and there. know that suggestion is us, too. one is do not give up on the legislative branch. somehow, we need to resist the temptation to rely on executive

orders and judicial orders. up thequires us to beef state legislative branch and the congressional branch. teachers are finding it more and more difficult. i'm so proud to see so many young people in the audience. my students are here, too. they are graduate students. people have asked me do i think students are getting more and more stupid as time goes by? the answer is no. just look at them. they learned that an iphone is not for phoning. [laughter] right? i would have thought that a phone is for phoning. they got it all figured out. it is not for phoning. it is for doing all sorts of other things. they are not dumb. they just don't read texts. [laughter]

you'd think they are so stupid they can't read? apparently. [laughter] student's, for example, first paragraph, what does it mean? oh, i can't read that. who could read that? it must've been the elites of the 1780's. was an opinion of editorial newspapers. that's where it was. it's not that they were elites. it's that we haven't been taught how to read. third and final point that we [sigh]haps engage in -- -- is to seek your ideas. and i would like to see some of not so much

unnecessary conferences, but chatting with each other about what you think that the country -- for example, how can you have seriously a democratic republic with 330 million people? this is not an anti-immigrant talk. let's go to one-child policy of china. what i am raising is that going back to sherman versus madison. people are happier, but the may also be freer in smaller committees where they know each other than in large communities where they don't. and i think it would be important to create that kind of atmosphere. and as a professor, i said that is the last point, but you should know better. [laughter] last point.olute i wish that we would stop thinking that the problems can be -- that the problems which we

have can be fixed by mechanics. put thatemove part and other part and if we remove this part, we will put that other part. it has to do with the whole idea of our attachment to the regime and our attachment to what it is that makes freedom ring. so may the blessings of liberty be with you. [applause] >> i think we have a few minutes q&a.and a -- for >> yes, you first. deal," withof the trump, they are fussing with him dealing with mitch mcconnell and pelosi on this debt kind of a thing that went on.

they are saying he did not get anything --in desk get anything in return because of compromise. >> who is fussing? >> the other parties? let's put it that way. is fussing pelosi that they did not get anything in return? trump's folks are fussing did not get anything in return? maybe he wasn't offering them anything they wanted. [laughter] bring it on! [laughter] >> thank you. >> hi. i have three parts. >> no, no, no. professors alone are permitted to give three parts. >> so here's the question. do you think neil marxism and postmodernism -- >> what?

>> has undermined the -- >> why do you begin with best >> you think post-marxism and modernism -- neil >> i think the second part has answered your first part. i think the answer is yes, it has undermined interpretation of the constitution or affection for the constitution or its usefulness. how do you do it? , if you can,ow the limitations of marxism postmodernism. premises is that everything is a matter of class. this has been going on for over a hundred years, that somehow

the constitution is the creation of one class to oppress the other class. of studieshole bunch that have been done in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's to demonstrate that there is a certain -- file everybody -- while everybody is well educated, class was not the main point. so one way to overcome it is to ask the question. significant variable? there is a division in the postmodern. there is something in addition to if not substituted for class. the marxist is class. so when you put marxist postmodern, on trying to divide the two.

it's ruled by the upper class for the upper class of the upper class by the upper class to shaft the underclass. and every institution, everything done, from religion to monuments to whatever it is, is a result of class war. ok. if we now start going into postmodernism, we are starting to compromise the exclusivity of class as a variable. we will bring in gender. identity politics. what has happened, when you itned the two together, invites me to go on for longer than i should in order to distinguish between a marxist approach and a postmodern approach. but what both have in common is that they don't believe in the written word. so that you pick up the constitution -- what have i done with it -- oh, it's here -- so

you pick up the constitution and you say article i,, shall have -- power that is necessary congress shall have all power that is necessary. -- ie language this assert take language seriously. when did that language come in? numeral two --ct act 2? what are you on, lloyd? why are you spending your time online widgeon context? don't you know that it is all a? -- why are you spending your time on language and context? don't you know that it is all about class? to say that the constitution matters is to say that language matters. does the elimination of hate speech subsequently eliminate free speech?

>> it can. i don't think it follows logically. let's go back the premise of a democratic republic. power is vested in the people. if power is vested in the people, it is possible for the people to say that, that hate speech well -- we want hate speech to limit free speech. what if the majority of the united states people said that? the supreme court would come back and say you can't do it. i'm here to say, if we can't overturn what the coat -- what the supreme court says, either by amendment to the constitution or hoping some of the older folks will die -- [laughter] court, then we are not a democracy. why sh --o i knowu you are

notl saying this, but i am using it --d we th why should we think that the constitutionink belongs to whatever the court says it is? presidents have this tendency to think we are the president -- or i and the president -- and, therefore, i am king or the virtual king. and therefore, whatever i say goes. i can create this executive order. mr. president, where in the constitution does it say you can do executive orders? well, i have legislative power. where in the constitution does it say you have legislative power? stop me. congress isn't. where does it say that the constitution belongs to the court? either one of the most debilitating phrases going around today is we live under

the constitution, but the constitution is what the court says it is. so to answer your question, free speech can become hate speech if we the people want it to become that, hopefully through civic education, through checks and balances, it won't. >> we have time for one last question. >> oh, come on. we have all night. [laughter] i'm just warming up. i had to give that lecture first, which was boring. [laughter] >> good evening, everybody. thank you, dr. lloyd, for having us. >> the blessings of liberty upon you, madam. a young lady who mentioned a question about what the trump administration got out of the compromise with regard to the debt ceiling. the compromise was $15 billion for emergency hurricane relief and avoiding a government shutdown. that's a pretty good deal.

so my question for you, dr. lloyd, is is the constitution alive or is the constitution dead? >> from question. but i will answer it. neither. question. is a loaded theto ask the question is restitution alive is to suggest -- or dead -- means we either have a living constitution or we have a dead constitution. constitutionliving is so loaded a term that it ]eans, for example, [sigh whatever the supreme court says it is. because the words itself cap bring it alive. part of the debate going on between a living constitution and this original is an is wrongheaded -- originalism is

wrongheaded. it doesn't get us wrong enough into the notion of constitution. to say it is a living constitution suggests that, if it weren't for the executive branch and the judicial branch giving life to the words, we wouldn't have -- i made, what would be the point of the constitution? all it is is just words. how do we get it to be alive? somebody has to make it alive. we the people make alive through mandates and elections. or we the people make it alive through our judges. or we the people make it alive through our president. but the word itself -- many of you originalists who think the words speak for itself. that's true if you use the word "and." i understand what and means, but a lot of people don't understand what "is" is. [laughter] awake!

[laughter] [applause] i get it. thank you very much. please join me one more time in thanking dr. gordon lloyd for his remarks tonight. [applause] on americanay, history tv, playwright and actor lin-manuel miranda assesses the u.s. capital historical societies 2017 freedom award for his work on the musical "hamilton." here is a preview. humanities arts programs can my learned more than how to play piano and follow stager actions. leader, too be a collaborate, to nurture empathy that makes our transformational.

when you are a theater kid, you make friends with kids from different grades in social groups. you learn to work hard to great something more than the sum of your parts, just for the sake of making something great. you and to trust your passion and let it lead the way. without the humanities arts program, i would not be standing here. and without alexander hamilton and the countless those who built this country, it is not possible that many of us would be here either. it includes thousands of young people today who came to this country with their parents and know no other home. [applause] their parents have no documents, but their kids are getting college degrees, working as first responders, and in the case of my own congressman, some are even working as lawmakers in the united states congress. our heritage of humanities and arts is shared and a replaceable. it belongs to every american,

rich and poor, young and old, urban and rural, immigrant and it are, republican and democrat, statue and still alive. [laughter] in every corner of our country. >> you can watch the entire ceremony in the u.s. capitol's statuary hall sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on american history tv, only on c-span 3. >> monday night, on the communicators -- >> 5g will open up a new way of innovation in the market. extremely fast speeds are you can use a hundred times what you use right now on your smartphone or your tablet. >> verizon senior vice president talks about competition in the wireless industry, net neutrality, and 5g deployment. she is interviewed by margaret hardy mcgill. >> you think the u.s. has the right, regulatory framework for

5g, making sure we are first in getting it out there? >> we've done a good job on spectrum>>. the fcc issued an order last year and it has opened up high-frequency millimeter spectrum in the industry. fiber,one a good job on getting it where it needs to be. rick and do more work on the infrastructure part. we willg and to homes, need to put a lot of different small cells all of the country, many more than we have today. once we do that, we will be in a good position. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> with a series of north korean missile tests, we decided to look next on real america, from 1959, the air force missile mission.

appearing in his beverly hills home library, academy award-winning actor and world war ii bomber pilot james stewart uses models, animation, and archival film to describe how the u.s. air force missile and jet arsenal is used as a deterrent in the cold war. mr. stewart, who reflects on his world war ii service in a b-24 liberator, was promoted in 1959 to brigadier general in the u.s. air force reserve, and flew a 1966 vietnam bombing mission. this is about 24 minutes. ♪