America, What’s Left of It: A Conversation with Patrick Deneen


Patrick Deneen joins this edition of Liberty Law Talk to discuss his latest book, Conserving America? Essays on Present Discontents.

Patrick J. Deneen

Patrick J. Deneen is David A. Potenziani Memorial Associate Professor of Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts


  1. Nancy D. says

    “In fact, the film does offer additional information regarding the geographical relationship of Bailey Park and the cemetery in an earlier scene with Mr. Potter’s rent collector, Reineman, comparing a pair of maps showing the growth of Bailey Park over fifteen years. From what we see of the maps, and the areas Reineman indicates, it seems clear that the new construction is some distance from the cemetery.”

    “No man is a failure who has friends”, 😉

  2. N.D. says

    The problem with the philosophy of Progressive liberalism, is that the philosophy of the autonomous conscience, and thus the autonomous individual, is not consistent with our founding Judeo-Christian principles, which recognizes that our unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty and to The Pursuit of Happiness exists in relationship to God.

    Our Founding Fathers recognized that our inherent Rights, which have been endowed to us from God, the purpose of which can only be, what God intended, are both moral Rights and political Rights.

    “Each man’s life touches so many lives”, because we are not autonomous individuals; we exist in relationship as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers.

    The idea of the autonomous individual with an autonomous conscience can easily lead to denying those self-evident truths, rendering onto Caesar what Has Always Belonged to God, eventually leading to tyranny, as we no longer desire to be One Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.

    • C. Lynch says

      I have been saying much the same thing for years. Another consequence of forgetting where rights truly come from is that they now need to be created by the State — a State which responds to demands for new rights by creating them out of thin air, waving away the complaints of those whose rights are diminished in the process. By calling them “rights”, they can intellectually justify letting a handful of judges make new law.

      Real, authentic rights are few in number and *by definition, cannot possibly conflict with each other*. This constant arbitration we have between conflicting rights is an unnecessary disease brought upon us by the secular utopians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>