Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California. My name is Joe Epstein a member and a former President of the Commonwealth Club's Board of Governors. It is my pleasure to introduce our distinguished speaker Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect and author of Freedom's Power: A Discussion of The True Meaning of Liberalism In America. Tonight's guest Professor Paul Starr has proclaimed that conservatism is in shambles and liberals now have a new opportunity. Liberalism, he states, is a practical strategy for a free society and for solving the mess that conservatives are leaving behind. At Princeton University Paul Starr holds the Stuart Chair in Communications and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School. In 1984 he won the Pulitzer Prize in the category of general non fiction for his book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine. He also won the Bancroft Prize for this work. In his recent book the creation of the media he received the prestigious Goldsmith Book Prize in 2005. Paul Starr is currently the co-editor with Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect, a well known liberal magazine created in 1990. He is also the co-founder with Robert Kuttner and current UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy Professor Robert Reich of that publication. Professor Starr is also well known for his expertise in healthcare. And in 1992 he authored a book entitled The Logic of health-care reform and he reissued an expanded version of that book two years later. This book laid out the case for a system of universal health insurance and managed competition. And in 1993 he was the Senior Advisor to President's Clinton's proposed health-care reform plan. Paul Starr earned his B.A. from Columbia University and a PhD in Sociology from Harvard in 1978. Paul Starr has even received a complement of sorts from current Chief Political Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove. And in an address given to the New York Conservative Party Rove stated that there is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes in his work, that was article entitled The Liberal Project Now. Well, Rove does go on to say however that he and Mr. Starr fundamentally disagree about many things I take it most things. But if Karl Rove thinks that there is merit in Paul Starr writing I think that there is something we will all learn tonight as we listen to him address the ideals of liberal thought and discuss his latest book Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism. Kindly welcome Professor Paul Starr. Thank you Joe and thanks to the Commonwealth Club for the opportunity to appear here tonight. All in all as bad as things may be in the world today this is I think an opportune moment to publish a book about Liberalism. The conservative movement, I think conservatism generally, is in deep trouble. Divided, on the defensive and with a lot of explaining to do for the fiasco in Iraq. The 2006 election was clearly a set back for the right. That doesn't mean, however, that it was a clear victory for liberalism. But the national conversation is open again. There is an opportunity to make the liberal case and there is some urgency I believe in clarifying just what that case is. I wrote Freedom's Power in the hope that I could change the way people think about liberalism. And by that, I mean, to include people on the left and people on the right. I wrote the book in the hope of persuading readers that there is a better way to think about liberalism. Truer to the tradition and better suited to the world's realities than the way they may have previously understood it. I wrote the book to propose that liberalism is not just a set of noble ideals but a practical strategy for creating the wealth and power that make freedom and justice realistic possibilities. I wrote in the conviction that liberalism's first principle and America's historic promise are and must be one and the same, the idea that each of us has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I wrote because I believe the best strategy for realizing that promise lies in the creation of inclusive democratic partnerships, a partnership at home, built on the basis of a shared prosperity and an international partnership in power built on the basis of a cooperative framework of security. And I wrote to argue that contemporary conservatism has weakened both of those partnerships, dissipated American power and degraded American ideals. And like my earlier books Freedom's Power is aimed at both the general reader who is curious about the subject and the academic reader who is well versed in it. And modestly I want to have an impact if I possibly can on popular, political and academic discussion. So, just as I want to persuade the general reader to think about liberalism differently, so I want to tell a different story about liberalism, from the one that many historians and political theorists accept. I hope to persuade them that despite all of the changes and disagreements within this tradition there is an overall coherence and continuity in the centuries long development of liberalism from its classical to its modern forms. I want to persuade them that liberal principles provide not only a theory of freedom and equality and the public good but also what I call a discipline of power, the means of creating power as well as controlling it. I want to argue that it is no accident that the two great classical liberal revolutions, 1688 in England, 1776 in America, though they began with the aim of controlling arbitrary power nonetheless produced what became in succession the two most powerful states in the world. And I want to argue that modern democratic liberalism, not conservatism, has the better claim to represent the true spirit of that tradition, the constitutional tradition on which this Republic has been built. Now perhaps the best way for me to convey what the book is about is to begin by explaining what I mean by liberalism. And there are two senses in which I use the term, the first and the broader meaning refers to the fundamental principles of constitutional government and individual rights shared by modern liberals and conservatives alike, though often differently interpreted by them. This is the tradition of constitutional liberalism, of classical political liberalism that emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, culminated in the American and French revolutions and continues to provide the basis to the modern liberal state. The classical liberals generally stood for religious liberty, freedom of thought and speech, the division of governmental powers, an independent civil society and rights in private property, in economic freedom that evolved in the 19th century into the doctrine of laissez-faire. Modern democratic liberalism developed out of the more egalitarian aspects of that tradition and its serves as the basis of contemporary liberal politics. The relationship between liberalism in these two phases has been predominantly cumulative. While rejecting laissez-faire economics the modern liberalism continues to take the broader tradition of constitutional liberalism as its foundation. And that is why it is possible to speak not only of the two separately but also of an overarching set of ideas that unites them. Historically liberalism has been defined by a shared albeit evolving body of political principles. One of those shared principles is an equal right to freedom, where freedom has been successively understood in a more expensive way. First as a right to civil liberty and freedom from arbitrary power. And then as a right to political liberty and a share in the government and finally as a right to the basic requirements of human developments and security necessary to assure personal dignity and equal opportunity. Although I have describe these as a series of rights they imply corresponding responsibilities that liberal society expects of its members individually and collectively in as much as individuals enjoy rights to civil liberality and freedom from arbitrary power. They are responsible for their own actions and what they make of their lives. In as much as citizens enjoy a right to political liberty and a share of the government, they have the responsibilities of citizenship to make a democracy work. And in as much as the members of a liberal society have right to basic requirements of human development such as education and a minimum standard of security, so they have the obligations to one another mutually and through their government to ensure that the conditions exist enabling every person to have the opportunity for success in life. The liberal project may be defined as the effort to guarantee these freedoms and to create the institutions and forms of personal character that will lead the people to assume responsibility not as an external burden imposed upon them but from a force within. And that's only a preliminary definition because liberties come into conflict with each other and with other interests. And there must be way of adjudicating among them that's consistent with the deepest interest in freedom and the public good. Moreover liberalism consists of principles, not only for a just society, but also for the design of a state that is capable of surviving in a world with other governments that are armed and dangerous. The classical theory of Freedom's Power is that a constitutional government can be strong but constrained, indeed strong because constrained. Or to put another way, constitutionally limited power can be more powerful than unlimited power. Constitutional constraints shield individuals from tyranny but they also strengthen the state's power to act on behalf of its citizens. Checks and balances, requirements for transparency and decision making and public accountability for performance reduce the odds of the capricious, reckless or self interested decisions by those in power. Public discussion invites ideas and information that autocrats don't receive or are unlikely to heed. A constitutional state that observes the rule of law are more likely to abide by its promises including paying its debts. Guarantees of religious freedom allow people of different faiths to cooperate under a political order that does not threaten to extinguish any of the various theological doctrines they support. But the classical liberal tradition had severe limitations. And there were limitations from the stand point of justice and there were limitations from the stand point of power. The liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, the liberalism for example of America's founders, was not democratic in a sense we would recognize today. The majority of people, men without property, racial minorities, women were denied political rights and full citizenship. In the 19th and early 20th centuries laissez-faire economics provided a framework for industrial capitalism's dynamic growth. But it left most working people in insecurity and poverty. And in the same era, while often favoring social reform at home the liberal imperialists supported western colonialism. The resulting conflicts and disasters almost brought liberal societies to ruin. The old liberal order of limited government, classical economics and colonialism went up in flames amid World War and the great depression and fascism or communism could have easily emerged from the wreckage to dominate the world. But modern liberalism and by that I mean in the United States The New Deal, transformed its classical inheritance into a genuinely democratic politics that proved stronger and more effective in both war and peace than its critics expected. Liberals began to call, it wasn't realized in many ways until the 1960s and 70s but liberals began to call for true political equality for all, aimed to bring raw capitalism under control in the interests of an expanded circle of prosperity and supported national self determination for all peoples and new forms of cooperation among states to promote democracy, human rights and international peace and security. The modern liberalism has a different theory, a more comprehensive theory of power than the one that classical liberalism gave us. The idea is that if we can use government, in limited but strategic ways, to invest in the public goods that the market fails to provide, if we can use government in limited but strategic ways to avoid the catastrophic damage from economic depressions. If we can provide genuine opportunity to those who have long but stigmatized and excluded and whose talents and abilities were lost to the society. If we can do those things and then guarantee stronger protections of civil liberties to counter balance the expansion of government then we can build a society that is not only more just but also more prosperous and more powerful. That is the modern liberal theory of Freedom's Power by which I mean the power that a free society generates and the power that the free society also demands - demands in part from a strong and capable constitutional state. And let me move to the very end of the book you know, if I can just quote from - this is a somewhat condensed version of what I say at the end of the book about current developments. Shrewd as they were in achieving political power, the Republicans of the Bush era have shown little of that genius in using it. A conservatism that does not want to hear about inequality or the sinking fortunes of the middle class or about dangers to the global environment or about unsustainable fiscal policies or about gaping flaws in plans for war may prevail in the short run. But the realities will sooner or later make themselves felt. A great nation cannot long be governed by wishful and simplistic thinking, denial, obfuscation, and deceit. Costs mount, grievances accumulate, and there comes a reckoning. The conservative default is liberalism's opportunity, an opportunity to rebuild the political majority by showing how liberal ideas make sense for America and by reopening a conversation with people who believe that liberals have not shown any concern or respect for them. At the heart of any such effort must be a program for shared prosperity to counter the trends towards rising inequality, insecurity, and stress on working families. But no politics can live on bread alone. The public's concerns are inextricably moral and material. Anyone who worries about the institution of marriage for example, ought to be receptive to changes in employer policies, the availability of preschool education and other reforms that would help parents meet their obligations both at home and at work. And anyone who favors those reforms ought to make the argument that they are good for stable marriages. Liberals are to contest conservatives for the very ground that the right claims as its own, morality and patriotism. What is the protection of the global environment if not a moral concern? What are the efforts to preserve America's constitutional liberties if not a patriotic devotion to the true basis of America's greatness? Liberalism should appeal for support on the straight forward basis that conservative economic policies do not serve the interest of the great majority of people. But liberalism ought to do more than that. It ought to remind us of our responsibilities and the power of our traditions and call us to greater interests and purposes than our own. Nothing has to be reinvented but everything has to be re imagined. Constructive ideas for new policies are not wanting. But liberals have to think differently about what those policies are for? And how they can be achieved? The era of single issue, progressive causes each agitating and litigating on its own is finished. Liberals have to make the case for progressive policies on the basis of the nation's shared interest and common future. The task of political leadership is as it has been so often in the past, to evoke a sense of our common citizenship, the belief that we are all in this together. That is the work of rebuilding the democratic partnership at home that includes working in middle class families and a partnership with other liberal democracies in defense of our common values and security. In much of world the liberal project is still the creation of constitutional democracy and liberalism remains an intellectual tradition without deep social and historical roots. But in the United States the idea that everyone enjoys an equal right for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is part of the national tradition. The story of America is of a nation that has grown greater and stronger by becoming more diverse, more inclusive and by extending the fruits of liberty more widely among its people. American liberals do not have to invent something new. They do not have to import a philosophical tradition from abroad. They have only to reclaim the idea of America's greatness as their own. Thank you.
