Mitch Daniels and George Will examine the ambitions and limits of American power—from the restless energy of the executive branch to the resilience of the republic’s institutions. Drawing on his decades of political observation, Will examines the overreach of executive power, the fatigue of America’s two-party system, and the civic virtues that uphold the republic. Together, they reflect on the creative ferment of a free society, the cyclical nature of history, and the moral limits that protect liberty from ambition and fatigue.
Mitch Daniels and George Will examine the ambitions and limits of American power—from the restless energy of the executive branch to the resilience of the republic’s institutions. Drawing on his decades of political observation, Will examines the overreach of executive power, the fatigue of America’s two-party system, and the civic virtues that uphold the republic. Together, they reflect on the creative ferment of a free society, the cyclical nature of history, and the moral limits that protect liberty from ambition and fatigue.
Intro (00:02):
Welcome to The Future of Liberty, a project of Liberty Fund hosted by Mitch Daniels.
Mitch Daniels (00:16):
Greetings, everyone. Today marks two firsts at least in the series of interviews that I’ve been privileged to do for Liberty Fund. First of all, we have, by my estimation, the most distinguished of all the guests that we’ve been fortunate enough to entice into these conversations. And secondly, it’s the first time we’ve done this in front of a live audience. I’m told the laugh track has been engaged, but I hope it won’t be necessary on too many occasions. George, thank you for joining us today.
George F. Will (00:54):
Pleasure.
Mitch Daniels (00:58):
This series of conversations is headlined “The Future of Liberty,” and so I’m going to try although there are so many topical questions that I’m sure would be of interest to the audience to inquire more about the long-term issues facing our republic. I thought I’d do that in three broad categories: first, to ask you about the health of some institutions that have, up to now, been important to the preservation of our system; then about the American people; and finally, a little about history.
So to start with the institutions: we’re in an unusual time, in which some perceive a very unrestrained executive on occasions seemingly not limited by the processes and customs that have typically hemmed in, or at least limited, the reach of presidential and executive power. Is that an overreaction when people talk about autocracy and the death of democracy through dictatorial actions?
George F. Will (02:17):
It’s a perennial worry. Several recent books in the last 15 years or so just to take their titles include Harvey Mansfield’s Taming the Prince on executive power; Michael McConnell at Stanford University, now a former appellate judge, The President Who Would Not Be King; and Saikrishna Prakash at the University of Virginia Law School, The Living Presidency—the theory of which is how to cage the executive lion.
It turns out that legislatures can only do so much in detail; therefore, discretion is granted to presidents. Therefore, the kind of person who becomes president is ambitious and has a muscular sense of himself or herself soon, no doubt. The tendency of power to expand until it reaches the end of its ability to expand is inexorable, as Madison and others said. So, it’s a perennial problem.
It’s unusual at the moment because the current president has intuited (A) that the Madisonian checks and balances don’t work right now. We can talk about why that is so and also because populism is in the air. Populism means, populism depends upon a rampant executive. Populism assumes that the people (A) know what they want and (B) that it should be translated directly into policy as fast as possible meaning no nonsense about refining it through legislative branches and all of that. Madison wanted “mitigated democracy,” a wonderful phrase. A populist president wants direct democracy, and everything in the American system militates against direct democracy.
Mitch Daniels (04:24):
We’ve seen it manifested recently, and I’d like to hear you comment on certain actions that some see as beyond the proper range of presidential authority tariffs, for example, or taxes by another name or another means. Does he, the president, have that authority? And if not, what’s the remedy?
George F. Will (04:56):
He has the authority until someone says he doesn’t. Teddy Roosevelt really pioneered the modern presidency; it wasn't Woodrow Wilson, who I think is the root of most evil. In fact, it was Teddy Roosevelt, who had the “stewardship theory” of the presidency. That theory holds that the president has the power to do whatever he is not explicitly forbidden to do.
In the great anthracite coal strike right after the turn of the 20th century, he said, “Don’t tell me about the Constitution. The people want coal.” Now, that was a good populist sentiment.
The first of Congress’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 is tariffs, trade, and relations with foreign powers. That’s how we got started as a country. Think of the Boston Tea Party and all of that, Jefferson’s embargo. It’s been a hardy perennial American argument, and if we don’t get this right, the president will be endlessly emancipated; presidential power will be twice what it was eight years ago. Now, what will the Supreme Court say? I don’t know. But Congress could always fill in the blanks. Congress has left huge blanks.
The emergency power you may declare an emergency but Congress could, with a line, say, “Here’s what an emergency is.” The president right now, in a related matter, is asserting the power to impound federal funds. The president is saying congressional appropriations are only ceilings. Well, he actually has a better historical case than I thought. And Congress can solve that problem and say, “No, this is not a ceiling. This is a mandate.” One sentence. The question is whether we can interest Congress in governing again whether it would like to stop being a spectator up in the bleachers.
What happened, it seems to me, Mitch, is that the Madisonian architecture, the checks and balances, assumed we were not going to have political parties.
(07:24):
The founders, when the Constitution was written in 1787, ratified, and came into effect in 1789 neither desired nor anticipated parties. Eleven years later we had a ferocious party presidential election in 1800. What happened? Well, parties, it turns out, are natural like dandelions on suburban lawns. They’re just going to happen.
So, the problem with that is I’m not against parties; they do give weight to partisanship and help the system work, but members of the president’s party, when they’re in the majority in Congress, think of themselves nowadays as downfield blockers for the presidential quarterback that their job is to advance his agenda and not have an agenda of their own. That’s a problem. Madison’s architecture depended upon the institutions having an independent institutional pride and their own ambition. Ambition, he said the great Madison in Federalist 51 “must be made to counteract ambition,” and the powers be associated with the rights of the place. He wanted senators and congressmen to be loyal, perhaps to their president he was, after all, a president but not just loyal. And what is disheartening today and ultimately dangerous to the architecture of our Constitution is the sense that there’s no rivalry, that they’re just team players.
Mitch Daniels (09:04):
Yeah, I believe I’m correct that I was temporarily heartened when the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced a bill that would have clarified that the president does not have unilateral power to impose tariffs, but as far as I know, he’s never even been able to get that bill a hearing in his own committee.
George F. Will (09:21):
That’s right.
Mitch Daniels (09:21):
Yeah. Well, if not Congress, then perhaps the Supreme Court, in whose lap some of these issues are about to land. Before I ask you about the separation of powers issues, let me ask you about a couple of others that have come along more recently: the idea that a president is immune from prosecution within the scope of his job. Rightly or wrongly decided?
George F. Will (09:51):
I think rightly decided. Our system cannot function. I mean, I’ve been banging away with my usual lack of consequence on the subject of presidential power, but the system doesn’t work unless energy is in the executive, to take the phrase from Alexander Hamilton. And if we’re going to have an energetic president, he cannot be constantly dispersed. Presidents are on duty 24/7. It used to be that just to get Congress back to Washington was a chore, people coming up by steamboats and through canals and over corduroy roads. It was just difficult.
Mitch Daniels (10:33):
The good old days.
George F. Will (10:34):
Exactly. The president’s there all the time now, and he cannot be hauled into court. He cannot be indicted. He has to be immune from certain frivolous lawsuits, and Lord knows there are enough of those.
Mitch Daniels (10:48):
Yeah. The last session or the last year’s session of the Supreme Court brought a lot of good news, some of us thought, in the Major Questions decision and doctrine, specifically giving clear signs of reining in, at least executive-branch agencies. I know you were as pleased by that as some of us.
George F. Will (11:13):
I was, because what the Court is doing is acting as a kind of a defibrillator trying to get the heartbeat of Congress back and strong is saying, “If you want the executive to do this, say so clearly with discernible principles implied.” So, Congress people have said, well, the Court’s taking power unto itself. No, no. The Court is saying, “Do your job, Congress.”
Mitch Daniels (11:40):
You mentioned the two-party system, and it has frequently, let's say, served as a ballast or led to corrections when our political process seemed to be running off the rails one way or another. You’re of the view that there is an exhausted middle, in somebody’s phrase. Can the two-party system which in the past has reacted to assemble new majorities do so once again? It doesn’t give signs right now of operating as it once has.
George F. Will (12:20):
It doesn’t, but our two parties, Herman Kahn or someone, said that after nuclear war the cockroach would be the only thing to survive, because it’s really simple. I think our political parties are the cockroaches of our political system. They’re very elemental, and they’re very adaptable.
Mitch Daniels (12:41):
The analogy is appealing on other grounds too, right?
George F. Will (12:46):
Yes. The parties have been, in the past, acutely sensitive like market mechanisms, seismographs trembling to every felt tremor from the public. Nothing wrong with that, not to surrender to every tremor, but to be aware of it. If you go back and read the 1924 Socialist Party platform, almost all of it is now law. They sold their ideas, and that’s one of the functions of a third party: to expand the conversation. Something has happened, though, so that we’re not doing that, we’re not drawing from these other sources. How we get that back, I don’t know. It begins by not looking at the other side as evil. Bill Lee, a two-term governor of Tennessee, says, “I’m conservative; I’m just not angry about it.” What a nice thought. And I just think that America is about to become what they used to call, when religious revivals would sweep the country, a “burned-over” district. The whole country is now burned over politically, and unless I’m mistaken, and there is precedent, the country is ready for a change of tone.
Mitch Daniels (14:11):
Well, we might hope so. The parties have typically been, not without principle, but they have been flexible. They have existed to win elections, and therefore have been—
George F. Will (14:20):
You and I are old enough to remember when the political scientists in the 1950s said, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we sorted our parties out on ideological grounds and we’d have coherent politics, a liberal party and a conservative party?” Well, we’ve done it, and is everyone happy? Not exactly. When I went to work on the Senate staff in 1970, Democrats controlled everything. There was McClellan of Arkansas on the Labor Committee; John Stennis from Mississippi on Armed Services; James Eastland from Mississippi on the Judiciary Committee; Richard Russell from Winder, Georgia, on Armed Services. Sam Ervin on Judiciary, it was all Southern conservatives, frankly, segregationists, almost all of them. But because there was diversity, you had a functioning system. Now that you have ideological clarity, you also have perennial animosities, as far as I can tell.
Mitch Daniels (15:30):
Your former columnist colleague, friend of mine, the late Mark Shields, had a formulation about the parties, about losing parties and how they eventually adapt. And I think the cycle, as he saw it, was: blame the candidate, blame the message, blame the people, and find anybody. We have a president with, last I looked, low and declining approval ratings. It has an opening, but are they too trapped by their ideology to seize it?
George F. Will (16:06):
I don’t know. The president’s approval rating right now, his net approval rating, is approximately where Biden’s was after the debate that knocked him out of the race. So, again, markets work, political markets work, and eventually this political market will work. There is such a thing in politics as a creative loser. You’re sitting today, Mitch, with one of the surviving members of the 27 million voters for Barry Goldwater. I cast my first presidential vote for Goldwater. In 1962, I graduated from college, where I’d been a sort of normal a Kennedy Democrat, then went to Britain, saw a great nation being suffocated by socialism and collectivism, went to Berlin, saw the Berlin Wall, and came back and voted for Barry. Now, at that point, conservatism was considered naughty but not serious, like it was kind of bad manners but something you’d tolerate. Well, Goldwater lost, but if Goldwater hadn’t lost and thus changed the Republican Party into a more conservative direction, I wouldn’t have been able to say, as I have many times, that Goldwater didn’t lose; it just took 16 years to count the votes. And so there’s such a thing as a creative loser, you could make the case that McGovern was a creative loser; he, in turn, really changed the axis of the Democratic Party.
Mitch Daniels (17:37):
Let me ask you about what I take to be a new series of theories that suggests that the environment in which we operate is fundamentally different now. There’s a book by a guy named Gurri, you’ve read everything, so you will be familiar, who believes that, not just here but in other societies as well, elites of all kinds have lost their grip over information and therefore their credibility. And he makes the case that it will be hard, if not impossible, for anyone to assemble a majority in a society as deeply cynical and skeptical as the one this phenomenon has created.
George F. Will (18:25):
I have read Gurri, and it is the case. Half the story is that the elites have lost control of information. The other half of the story is that people have lost their belief in information, that there’s no such thing as information; there is simply partisan ammunition to be seized upon and wielded. And that’s the dangerous thing. A kind of postmodernism has leaked out of the literature departments of our universities into a kind of pandemic of epistemological nihilism.
Mitch Daniels (18:57):
Yes.
George F. Will (18:57):
And it’s profoundly dangerous. That’s, by the way, my immigration policy. You want to hear it?
Mitch Daniels (19:04):
Yeah.
George F. Will (19:05):
For every 10 immigrants we accept, we deport one tenured professor of English.
Mitch Daniels (19:15):
It’s a great idea. Can I suggest we tweak the ratio?
George F. Will (19:20):
Yes.
Mitch Daniels (19:21):
It may not be aggressive enough. A little while back, I was able to talk with Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion but, much more importantly, a dissident from the last days of the Soviet Union. And he, in response to a question made, I thought, an interesting and somewhat surprising observation. He said that the reason Russia collapsed back into Putinism was that they had a fundamental misunderstanding. He said, “We thought democracy was a result, but it’s a process,” and that the moment you begin to conclude that you can rig the game, it’s okay to tweak the rules so that our side wins, he said that then school’s out. Does that comport with your view of maybe where we are now?
George F. Will (20:24):
Yes. It’s now a commonplace to say that politics is downstream from culture, and the culture that nourishes democracy must be, on the one hand, the wonderful ferment of culture we had in the revolutionary era when, as historian Gordon Wood has said, what we pioneered was a non‑deferential culture in our society. We were no longer going to tug our forelocks to any other institution or country or class. The problem with that is this: the question in any society, Mitch, isn’t whether elites shall rule, it’s which elites. And the challenge of democracy is to get consent from worthy elites. That’s hard to do when you’ve decided that to be an elite is to be a suspect and a public enemy. It’s partly because we have this confusion that our elites are not very elite. That is, “elite,” that’s an elite automobile; that’s an elite baseball player, that implies extra talent. “Elite” now has come to mean only unearned prominence and unjustified power and influence, and again, it’s a kind of nihilism.
Mitch Daniels (21:51):
As you say, culture is the wellspring, and this was no mystery at the founding. The founders all said, I think all said, by one expression or another, that the republic they were fashioning was fit for a virtuous people, and you have written in your—
George F. Will (22:16):
Can I interrupt you with just one thing?
Mitch Daniels (22:18):
Yes.
George F. Will (22:19):
A virtuous person would be immune to what the founders called “popular arts.” By “popular arts,” they meant demagoguery. They meant things to trick the public, to bring out their worst aspects, to suppress the better angels of their nature. So they were worried about the arts of their own class. These were all political people, and they liked politics, and they knew it was indispensable. But within this indispensable honorable craft, there’s a serpent, and the serpent in the garden is the ability to degrade the public while courting it.
Mitch Daniels (23:06):
The most indispensable book of recent times is authored by our guest. I trust, if you haven’t all read it, you will accept my advice and rush out and buy it immediately. It’s called The Conservative Sensibility, and I think you once told me your staff refers to it as the New Testament.
George F. Will (23:26):
The New New Testament.
Mitch Daniels (23:27):
Yes. Which it is an appellation.
George F. Will (23:30):
They’re required to speak that way.
Mitch Daniels (23:35):
But you do say there that, among other things, that government today is inimical to the virtues of self‑government in at least two ways: first, by fostering dependency; second, by encouraging and practicing incivility and aggressiveness and so forth. That’s a kind of dispiriting, you can’t argue with it, but it’s still a dispiriting analysis.
George F. Will (24:08):
In 1964, the year Goldwater ran and lost 44 states, I can pick ’em, can’t I? The public was asked in a poll, “Do you expect the government to do the right thing all the time or almost all of the time?” and the answer was 70% of the time.
Today, that poll would be something like 8%. What’s changed? Well, what’s changed is that the government is bigger; the government is more solicitous; the government is more caring; the government is more intrusive. And as its pretensions have risen, its prestige has plummeted. There’s a lesson in that, and it’s so obvious that if the government would do the little things right, first things first, don’t run U.S. Steel; fix the roads. Someone once ran for governor of Michigan and got elected on the slogan “Fix the damn roads.” Good slogan.
Second, there are two ways of approaching politics. One is to envision the best and pursue it. The other, which I subscribe to, is to notice the worst and avoid it. We had an enormous opportunity in the 20th century to see just how bad politics could get. Start there, figure out what the lessons were, and let’s avoid that. A lot of people say, “Well, that’s boring; it’s banal; it doesn’t make my pulse race.” Good. I don’t want pulse‑race politics; I want calm.
Mitch Daniels (26:04):
I’ve said many, many times over the years that after I pass away, if there’s a tombstone, it will read, “He raised four great daughters and fixed the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.”
George F. Will (26:18):
Exactly.
Mitch Daniels (26:22):
And they’re applauding because it happens to be true, and it was based on exactly your conviction that the government ought to earn, and can earn confidence by doing those things that we can all agree is necessary to do.
George F. Will (26:39):
This is why, it seems to me, the sleeper issue in our politics today is K–12 education. That is where, for most Americans, government intersects with their lives at some point or other, and that’s why we see the most creative ferment in our policy in K–12 education, the new civics education in school, school vouchers, education pods, homeschooling. There’s a real wonderful ferment out there, which really testifies to the fecundity of American freedom. It’s still there.
Mitch Daniels (27:17):
I want to read you just one quote before we leave the American people behind us here, Andrew Sullivan. I don’t know whether you regard him highly or—
George F. Will (27:29):
I do.
Mitch Daniels (27:29):
—poorly, but I want to share what he wrote. I was very discouraged to read his writing just recently: “The American people no longer want to govern themselves, they are sick of this republic, they will no longer keep it if it means sharing it with people they despise.” Now, earlier today I read you a more encouraging quote from someone who thinks that the pendulum will swing back and those who’ve been exhausted by recent politics will search for, and find, someone to restore calm and perhaps some competence. Is that, are you betting on that side of the equation?
George F. Will (28:21):
I am, what I’m going to say, I’m going to say delicately, because I don’t like to talk about current stuff too much. I’ll say this: one of the lessons of the last decade of American politics is how profoundly one person can change the tone of American life. The good response to that, the cheerful response, is that it ought to be possible for one person to change it back. That is, I regret the fact that we live in a presidential‑centric country. I think the president is too much with us, of all parties. Let me digress for just one moment. When Roosevelt gave his first fireside chat as president after his March 4, ’33, inauguration, he began with two words that didn’t appear on the transcript, it’s up at Hyde Park; it’s not there, but he began with two words. He began, “My friends.” Now, he’s on the radio, which, to me, is a more revolutionary technology than the internet or television or anything else, because it annihilated the distance between the governor and the governed. It created a new intimacy. Roosevelt knew he was talking to people in desperate fear at that point, sitting around their Philcos in parts of the country that barely got rural electrification, and they wanted a friend in the White House. I don’t want a friend in the White House. I want someone who will take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and at least start there. And just, again, a more modest sense… I don’t want to be callous, but when Michael Jackson died, I’m sorry he died, but we didn’t need the president to speak about this. Presidents are now expected to be national mourners, national keepers of our consciences. No, take care that the laws are faithfully executed, then get back to us.
Mitch Daniels (30:40):
We’ve seen it emphatically demonstrated, as you say, that a president can change the tone of public conversation for the worst. It remains to be seen whether, having happened, that tone can be changed in the other direction.
George F. Will (31:03):
That is the test. As you have said, is this swing a pendulum or a ratchet? If it’s a ratchet that clicks in only one direction, then we’re in serious trouble.
Because we have now legitimized behaviors that we would punish in our eight‑year‑old. I just don’t think there is such a thing as permanent victory or permanent loss in a society. There are no final victories. If I had to sum up the great conservative insight about life in two words, it is: nothing lasts. Now, that can be consoling. Lincoln in 1858, with war clouds and disunion lowering over the country, gave a talk at what was the precursor of the Wisconsin State Fair, and he concluded by telling the story of the Oriental despot who summoned his wise men and gave them a charge. He said, “I want you to go away and don’t come back until you have devised a proposition to be carved in stone, to be forever in view and forever true.” They came back, and their proposition was, “This, too, shall pass away.” But Lincoln said, “Perhaps it’s not true. If we cultivate the internal world within us as assiduously and prodigiously as we cultivate the physical world around us, we might endure.” Well, we have, partly because Lincoln came along, and it’s really hard to count on Lincolns coming around. But who thought Lincoln was going to come around? Now, I know people in Indiana maintain that his greatness is that he spent his formative years in Indiana.
Mitch Daniels (32:59):
If you hadn’t pointed that out, I was planning to.
George F. Will (33:02):
I was afraid of that, but Lincoln’s a miracle, but there is precedent.
Mitch Daniels (33:13):
One last question, then. You’re a historian, and others who claim to be historians think they see cycles in history, sometimes over the long sweep of centuries, sometimes just within the context of American history every so often. It’s certainly been true that cataclysmic events have occurred that have changed the nature of the republic in the time after. You can pick your own, but the election of 1800 is sometimes seen as one, and the Civil War and the Depression and, of course, wars like the Second World War, and there are many people who think that we’re due for one, that we’re headed for one, that maybe we’ve built our debts, for instance, the preconditions for one. So, my question is: do you think that’s fated to be, and if in fact it should occur, is it possible that it’s necessary? Just as sometimes recessions lay the groundwork for stronger economies?
George F. Will (34:27):
The study of history, and when I’m dictator of this country, the only permissible major in college is going to be history. I’m serious. I’m so tired of reinventing the wheel, let’s learn from the past. The study of history teaches us contingency. It teaches us that nothing is necessary. It teaches us the role of luck. If there hadn’t been a fog on the East River in that late summer of ’76 that rescued George Washington’s army one night, one fog, the Revolution would’ve been over.
Mitch Daniels (35:06):
If that Confederate courier hadn’t dropped the cigars for an Indiana corporal to pick up.
George F. Will (35:13):
With the Confederate plans for Antietam. Yes. Luck plays a role. Contingency is good. That’s why history, sometimes people say it’s one damn thing after another, and other people say, “No, it’s the same damn thing over and over again.” Need it be that way? Things change. Some Yale graduate goes south to be a tutor on a plantation, gets tired of listening to the planters complain about the problem of separating cotton seed from cotton fiber. So this kid named Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin. Suddenly, the plantation system spreads, slavery spreads, and it brings on the American Civil War, and the modern world. Rather a lot of change from one entrepreneurial genius from Yale, of all unlikely places.
Mitch Daniels (36:08):
Especially these days.
George F. Will (36:09):
Exactly. So, if you understand the contingencies, nothing has to happen. Decline is a choice, and we can make different choices.
Mitch Daniels (36:22):
George, thank you so much for spending this time with us. I have made it a practice to end each of these little inquisitions with the same question, to which your most recent comments lead us very directly. In the year 2050, do you expect that the United States will be more or less free than today?
George F. Will (36:47):
I think it will be more free, because we’re flirting with all kinds of departures from freedom, as I understand it: free trade, government permeating culture in unhealthy ways, and one of the reasons those are unhealthy is that they don’t work.
We’ve seen this before. This is the same damn thing over and over again, and I think we often learn by running into walls and stubbing our toes and hitting our fingers with the hammers. And it’s painful, but we learn. We’re more careful with the hammers. So my feeling is we’re about to go into a kind of seminar on mistakes, avoidable mistakes, but we’re going to get tired of the crony capitalism. What’s going to be the result of these tariffs, where the Commerce Department becomes an auction always in session doing special favors for people? The reason we’re conservatives is that it works. Freedom works. The fecundity of freedom, again, has been proven over and over again, and periodically we have to depart, hit our thumbs with the hammer, and then correct course. But the recuperative powers of our country are astonishing. I have lived and I’m 84 years old, born in 1941, in the early 1950s one of the most heroic stories in the history of the human race began, or rather, it didn’t begin then, but took special life in the civil rights movement. People set out to dismantle tyranny, let’s call it that. Jim Crow was a tyranny, a majority popular tyranny in the South, and they did it. Astonishing, the changes in this country. I mean, to think that in 1954 people had to sit in the back of the bus, try to explain that to someone now. The change of the American mind, the plasticity in the best sense, the fact that we take new shapes from new evidence is unbelievable and inspiring.
Mitch Daniels (39:08):
George Will, for 50 years you’ve been, not one of, in my judgment, the most important voice in our country for these principles we’ve been discussing. I know on at least one occasion I’ve tried to pay, I can’t pay a high enough compliment to our guest, but I did say, “He has so frequently changed my mind,” and thank goodness you’re still working and changing minds, I know, on a regular basis. Thank you for your service to our republic and to the principles that the Liberty Fund, and I know this audience, cherish as you do. Thank you for being with us. Thank you all for joining us.
Outro (39:54):
The Future of Liberty has been brought to you by Liberty Fund, a private educational foundation dedicated to encouraging discussions of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.