Professor Mansfield Is In

Golden Boy from Tennessee

To quote my introduction, Lamar Alexander is one of these golden children: Eagle Scout; president of his high-school class; governor of Boys State; editor of the college newspaper; Phi Beta Kappa; governor, which is to say real governor; university president; cabinet member; U.S. senator; presidential candidate. The presidency, by my calculation, is the only thing that ever eluded Mr. Alexander. He is a Republican. At the outset of our conversation, I suggest to him that he could not get anywhere in GOP politics today. His credentials and abilities would work against him. “Am I cynical or realistic?” “I hope you’re not realistic,” Alexander says. He has written his memoirs: The Education of a Senator: From JFK to Trump [https://www.amazon.com/Education-Senator-JFK-Trump/dp/B0FWZX15NQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1SB0J18A6ZB3E&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.NhRIg8Q-0nemCF9Id9Mxb4plnKKg8lehPFnmd9jwsxL9iaO_LJKzfQWuvdHNldzJD06XynaujcMmcFk9GMizgd6m6HQV1Oo6jxnVicKAOE5SU3lVfnSyhh5tbFe-z77yExc6--Mqb0a9rZxvpqaW56uP16r7eb8Bx8GHt-xpDm5z2KJXCkOi3mHUHy8oqvsq9e2g7bqrx0WpblpRSzQFoBZIA8WqvnZfxN2PqGJOpyA.2mXqbuuN1BO8CNSbD1B5tJWikM5TuF0hkY0AlRxTgkE&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+education+of+a+senator&qid=1779892744&sprefix=the+education%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-1]. Alexander is a seventh-generation Tennessean, a native of a mountain district that was Lincolnite. It was a Union area. When asked about his politics, Alexander’s great-grandfather would say, “I’m a Republican. I fought with the Union, and I vote like I shot.” Today, you can see Confederate flags in that district, as you can in my home state of Michigan—including way up north, in the Upper Peninsula. Curious phenomenon. In our podcast, Alexander and I discuss it a bit. His parents were teachers and public-spirited. When Lamar was ten, his father took him to the courthouse to meet Congressman Howard H. Baker Sr.—father of the future senator (and majority leader). “I was sure that I had just met the most respected man I was ever likely to meet,” says Alexander, “other than my dad and the preacher. I was raised to respect public service.” Alexander went to Vanderbilt and then to New York University Law School. It was quite a switch, living in Greenwich Village. Alexander has had a broad experience. In the Nixon White House, he worked under Bryce Harlow, the legendary staffer and adviser. (Harlow had advised Eisenhower previously.) He is known by some of us for a particular saying: “Trust is the coin of the realm in Washington, D.C.” Says Alexander, What I mostly remember about him is his wisdom and ethical attitude. At 29 years old, I sat 50 feet from the Oval Office at a desk crammed up next to his. I listened to his telephone conversations and saw other White House aides come in with difficult issues. The question he asked more often than not was, “What would be the right thing to do?,” and for many of them, that would clear up what they ought to do. I got my Ph.D. in politics and government from that remarkable person. Alexander also worked for Howard Baker (Jr.). I have an easy question: Would he have made a good president? Here is Alexander’s answer (and I will lightly paraphrase, as is my custom in these articles): In my opinion, the most important attributes of a president are character and temperament. And it would help if the president were very broad-gauge—if he had had a broad-gauge life. Then, I would hope the president leaned right, because I’m a conservative, but I’d rather have one with superior character and temperament, someone I could introduce my grandson to, someone about whom I could say to my grandson, “I hope you grow up to be like him.” Howard Baker was that kind of person. In our Q&A, we talk about Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Reagan. We talk about the difference between being a governor and being a senator. (Alexander is well positioned to discuss this issue.) We talk about education policy. (Same. Alexander was education secretary under Bush 41.) We talk about running for president. I ask him something cheesy, and something important—something along the lines of “Will our democracy survive?” Sure it will, he says. But then he holds up his smartphone: This is a problem, our “digital democracy,” which does a great job of setting people at enmity, driving them into little tribes. One of the people Alexander has most admired is John Minor Wisdom, the appeals-court judge, one of the “Fifth Circuit Four.” Young Alexander worked for him, down in New Orleans, where the court is based. The “four” were instrumental in the advancement of civil rights. In addition to his legal duties, Alexander played at Your Father’s Moustache, a bar and nightclub on Bourbon Street. Alexander plays the piano and the trombone. During one of my campaigns, a reporter said, “Mr. Alexander grew up in a lower-middle–class family in the mountains of Tennessee,” where I live today, and my mother—I talked to her that weekend, and she was reading Thessalonians to gather strength for how to deal with this slur on the family. She said, “Son, we never thought of ourselves that way. You had a piano lesson from the day you were three and a library card from the day you were four. You had everything you needed that was important.” What a joy, to speak with Lamar Alexander. As I say at the end of our podcast, I wish I could go out and vote for him today. Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe [https://www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Professor Mansfield Is In

It is always a treat to talk with Harvey Mansfield—Harvey C. Mansfield Jr., the scholar of political philosophy. He has been on the faculty of Harvard University (his alma mater) since 1962. Today, he is a professor emeritus. Many times, he has been my guest on Q&A. And he is again. His new book is The Rise and Fall of Rational Control: The History of Modern Political Philosophy [https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Rational-Control-Philosophy/dp/0674298853]. Opening question (mine): What is modern political philosophy? That is, when does it begin? It begins, says Professor Mansfield, with “Nick Machiavelli” (as he calls him, with a smile). Machiavelli advanced the idea of “rational control.” And what is rational control? Professor Mansfield explains the concept and provides a few examples. When they put speed bumps in your neighborhood, instead of going door to door asking people to drive slowly and carefully? That’s rational control. I ask Mansfield a range of questions, including this: “I assume you’ve read everything in your field—the ancient philosophers, the medieval ones, and the modern ones. But are there any gaps? Do you have a ‘lacuna,’ as Bill Buckley would say? Something you haven’t read but ought to?” “Oh, look,” says Mansfield, “I’m not as widely read as some other people.” He tries to “go deep” with selected books, rather than to get a “glimpse” at everything. Just now, he is studying Swift: Gulliver’s Travels. Another question: “When we’re young, we tend to have clear, strong opinions about things: about politics, philosophy, literature, music, and so on. But our views may shift as we grow and ripen. In the field of political philosophy, are there some who have gone up in your estimation and some who have gone down?” Yes, says Mansfield. John Rawls has gone up. As for those who have gone down—Harvey graciously demurs. One of his books is The Spirit of Liberalism [https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Liberalism-Harvey-Mansfield-Jr/dp/0674833120/ref=sr_1_1?crid=VJQXZFXWZ4CD&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._0DSATxZsPbpFWfhH2GrVjXYdJlrUayeP0ePfOGzWELjtcmRSR9dBfTkJuI310O4cUxYRPDI3jRh-kZCW9dYBL0e9G_nhIqgapA6JLvcYq290-fb0mHubos9wuH5NrkY.KDGSQon10oepwflWVhV6oa2-yNRIiwmDJgtAPz_sSlg&dib_tag=se&keywords=mansfield+the+spirit+of+liberalism&qid=1779538960&s=books&sprefix=mansfield+the+spirit+of+liberalism%2Cstripbooks%2C93&sr=1-1] (“liberalism” in the sense of “political freedom”). In our Q&A, we talk a bit about liberalism—its nature. Its strengths and weaknesses. Its durability and fragility. Mansfield is very canny on the subject. You know where illiberalism holds sway? On our college campuses, too many of them. In a Q&A with another regular guest, George F. Will, I asked, “Have you ever been starstruck by anyone?” Yes, he said [https://www.jaynordlinger.com/p/george-f-will-on-ukraine-us-politics-b78]—by Isaiah Berlin. Well, has Harvey C. Mansfield been starstruck by anyone? Yes—by Leo Strauss. For a year, he attended a weekly seminar with Strauss. “Astonishing,” says Mansfield. “I’d never seen anyone so smart, and so knowing, and so impressive. It took all my powers to keep up with him, or to try to keep up with him. … That was the experience of my life, I would say.” Toward the end of our podcast, we talk about novels and poetry. One genre that Mansfield reads is mysteries. They entail the importance of punishment. That’s not something you’re likely to hear about in political-science class, says Mansfield. Among his authors are Agatha Christie, J. K. Rowling, and Joe Ide. The third of these is a cousin of Francis Fukuyama, the political philosopher. By the way, does Professor Mansfield have a favorite Founder? Not really, but if he did, it would be Madison, paired with Hamilton—those two main authors of The Federalist. “That book is just so wonderful. It’s a joy to read, it lifts your mind.” A talk with Mansfield is pretty joyous and mind-lifting itself. Our podcast had some technical difficulties—some delays, some “freezing.” It’s a little choppy. But it’s smooth enough, and I know you will enjoy. Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe [https://www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Law, Liberty, and Cass (Sunstein)

Introducing this Q&A, I say, … our guest today is Cass Sunstein, the law professor, the legal thinker, the writer. For many years, he taught at the University of Chicago, and for many years since, he has taught at Harvard. He has written a profusion of books, to go with countless articles—though maybe someone has counted them. His latest books, I believe, are On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom [https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Defense-Cass-R-Sunstein/dp/0262049775/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YH3ADQSV2NAO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.96Xo3LciH8wkE2Exg4rgIKBtPgLdv1xGSRcIj6n42V7txWUTsdbts9rhC_PffyIsLYNOQ59P4mhTtdrGMDMi0KYHbJ9G-2qPk2-Dt22u6_u2i4pYUyCLSxVbocKJAAfH3r9uU2EtDXdwfR8iCjKOUD-lEBjZ22qy0Gl8J81XQUbQC0kY_3nFXjDnaqgUZ6Xw8916EXVKTZ51tk2xl1xAMQQQ1ArbfWidO8SgFaoA12Q.eGa7pjKjqrtX1aKjKTD_ZPFjw37UgLs1P5cdkCzR1lg&dib_tag=se&keywords=On+Liberalism%3A+In+Defense+of+Freedom&qid=1776805104&sprefix=on+liberalism+in+defense+of+freedom%2Caps%2C295&sr=8-1] and Separation of Powers: How to Preserve Liberty in Troubled Times [https://www.amazon.com/Separation-Powers-Preserve-Liberty-Troubled/dp/026205177X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LGYBJC63Z94Z&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2wy9Nzeal4TyvgvD9ZdxC-6WCx1hEMI3M0cc-bEZrSnx5T2GzpX9JuiEjsmRt979PcvflsGdW1kYslbRNyp90guerLageNUafXNeoY9-rkKz-MQfiu4lZA7ruYF5VLkB.GyFrCWk0EeQb6mEFNu7LhE3C0UAI3l-Md-jnm4OGWH0&dib_tag=se&keywords=Separation+of+Powers%3A+How+to+Preserve+Liberty+in+Troubled+Times&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1776805129&sprefix=separation+of+powers+how+to+preserve+liberty+in+troubled+times%2Caps%2C161&sr=8-1]. Professor Sunstein is also a Substacker. His Substack is called, straightforwardly enough, “Cass’s Substack [https://casssunstein.substack.com/].” Truth in advertising. It is delightful and nutritious, time after time. Toward the top of our program, we spend some time on liberalism—beginning with what it is, what we mean by it. In his book on liberalism, Sunstein isn’t talking about the policy preferences of George McGovern or Barack Obama. He’s talking about the liberalism of the American founding, a liberalism that encompasses Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, et al. The “holy trinity” of liberalism, says Sunstein, is “the rule of law, pluralism, and freedom.” Hey, what’s “the rule of law”? Sunstein gives a very clear explication of that as well. As for the separation of powers—how’s that going in these United States? Sunstein points out something interesting: Congressmen “have been more protective of their own party’s president than of their own institution.” And this is something the Framers “didn’t anticipate.” In 2020, David French published a book called “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation [https://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Divorce-Country-Apart_And/dp/1250201977].” Let me quote from my review [https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/the-great-american-divorce/] of it: French is doing his best to make an academic paper famous. He has cited it in his speeches for years, and he devotes a chapter to it in his book. He says that the paper does no less than “explain America.” If there is one point in the book to understand, he says, it is the point of the paper. What is this blockbuster piece of writing? Published in 1999, it’s “The Law of Group Polarization,” by Cass Sunstein … And what is its point? French boils it down to these simple words: “When people of like mind gather, they tend to become more extreme.” This extremism can lead to nasty words on social media, sure. It can also lead to a lot more. In our Q&A, Professor Sunstein expounds. His sport is squash, and he has a reputation for it. I ask, “Are you a professional or a top amateur?” He will allow the following and no more: “Well, I’d say an avid squash player. I’ve played in professional tournaments but haven’t done particularly well in them, so I consider myself an enthusiast and not incompetent.” At the end of our conversation, we say a quick goodbye—because he is “due on the court,” as he says. I have written many times about Robert Conquest [https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/09/robert-conquest-appreciation/], the historian and poet (and a friend of mine, I’m lucky to say). I once asked him (something like), “What are you?” In other words, “How would you describe yourself politically?” In the course of his answer, he brought up Orwell: who spoke of “law and liberty.” The “law-and-liberty lands.” Bob said, “I’m for a law-and-liberty culture.” So, indeed, is Cass Sunstein, who is a superb interlocutor, a superb teacher. You will see and hear. Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe [https://www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

The Rule of Law, a.k.a. the Ballgame

Our latest guest on Q&A is a “legal eagle,” as I say in my introduction. He is Gregg Nunziata, the executive director of SRL—the Society for the Rule of Law. The organization serves an important purpose. Gregg worked in the Justice Department. And for the Senate Judiciary Committee. And for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. And for Senator Marco Rubio. And so on. He was in the heart of the Republican legal world. These days, he has one overriding concern: to defend the rule of law. Yes, and that’s a fine overriding concern to have. At the outset of our Q&A, I ask Gregg, “What is the rule of law?” I will paraphrase his answer (though closely): I think the rule of law, most basically, is the idea of fair play—that we, as citizens, as individuals, live in a system that has rules for resolving disputes. For most of human history, the weak have been at the mercy of the strong, or the whim of a leader. That is still true for most of the world today. The rule of law is a great equalizer that puts all this aside and says, “We’re going to resolve our differences peacefully and through process.” … Everything that human beings value—everything that Americans value and maybe take for granted—rests on the rule of law. Prosperity, physical security, our liberties—it all depends on the rule of law. My remark is, “Yes, it’s kind of the ballgame” (and I’m not so sure about the “kind of”). The Society for the Rule of Law [https://societyfortheruleoflaw.org] was founded by a bunch of conservative Republicans, basically, who were concerned about what was happening on “the legal right,” as Gregg Nunziata says, and on the right generally. What was happening? Well, you know: a collapse of principle. Gregg and I talk a bit about his upbringing, his education, his formation. In the 1980s, there were two people who made a deep, deep impression on him: a president, Ronald Reagan, and a Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia. After 9/11, Gregg wanted to work in government somehow—and he eventually got to Washington. About one of the people he worked for, I tell him the following: Marco Rubio may have been my favorite politician in America—certainly top five. I have no idea who he is. There’s “no there there.” I have a better grasp on Lindsey Graham! I have no idea who Marco Rubio is, except for the ambition part. And I absolutely adored him. Gregg says, I worked for three senators directly. I worked with many others, but with three directly. The first, I respected; the second, I loved; but the third, I believed in. The first was Arlen Specter, from Pennsylvania. The second was John Thune, who is now the majority leader. And the third was Marco Rubio. … I really believed in him and his vision. I worked closely with him for four years, and very much wanted him to win the presidential nomination in 2016. A part of me died that year. I mean, it was really disillusioning. Gregg remembers a fellow who “would speak really, really eloquently about the power of democracy, about the importance of international alliances, about the importance of USAID …” Yeah. At some point, Gregg and I talk about the Justice Department. I had always understood it to be an institution serving the country as a whole. Now it is simply the president’s legal shop—an instrument of his will. They have hung a banner of him—of his visage—on the department itself, physically. Gregg says: “civic blasphemy.” He also says that lawyers working for the government once understood themselves to be lawyers first, meaning that they told the president when something was undoable because it was unlawful. Autres temps, autres mœurs. Gregg says, I hear regularly from conservative law students that the law doesn’t matter, that we live in a post-legal regime, a post-constitutional regime, or that everything is just about power. Or you hear that law is just an elaborate ruse of the Left to suppress traditionalism and Western civilization. If you can’t count on a conservative law student to believe in law, you’re in a rough spot. … I’m just scandalized by the radicalism we see in the Republican Party and from young self-styled conservative intellectuals who don’t want to conserve a thing but want to burn everything down. That worldview has been wrong since Paris in 1789. Yet Gregg does not despair—and he works every day toward “American renewal,” as he puts it. For my money, Gregg Nunziata is one of the most important lawyers in the country. He could be at a high, high echelon of power, in the Republican Party, in the Trump administration. All he had to do was play along. Instead, he heads this Society for the Rule of Law. I’m grateful for the guy, and I know you’ll enjoy getting to know him. Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe [https://www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Political Worlds, Old and New

Charlie Sykes is a veteran journalist, of a conservative bent. He is a writer and broadcaster. Find Charlie at To the Contrary [https://charliesykes.substack.com/], his Substack. On Q&A, he and I have had a meaty, wide-ranging chat. He is a Wisconsinite, whose father was a newspaperman. “I always thought of the daily newspaper as a daily miracle,” says Charlie. I thought the same thing, by the way. When Charlie was in eighth grade, his dad was the Wisconsin campaign manager for Eugene McCarthy’s presidential campaign. Charlie traveled around the state that year. He was immersed in politics—the affairs of the nation and world—at an early age. Incidentally, Charlie’s father would move rightward, and so would Charlie himself. Charlie always had a zest for politics. So did I. Has this zest worn off, for both of us? Do we derive the same pleasure from politics—the debates, the rough-and-tumble, the game—that we once did? No. But it is our duty to hang in there, says Charlie: to make the points that need making, and to take the stands that need taking. In this Q&A, we spend a little time on the Iran war. I want to know: Was it worth it? And is “was” the right tense? I hope it was worth it; I’m not sure it was. We then talk about the world we inhabited for so long: conservative journalism, right-of-center politics. Dramatic changes have taken place in that general world. The conservatism of the past has been replaced by the right-wing populism of today. I confess to Charlie that the shock has not quite worn off for me—though I have had at least ten years to adjust, which is more than enough. On this as on all other subjects, Charlie has interesting things to say—frank and thoughtful at the same time. Some people claim that you can draw a straight line from our kind of conservatism—what Charlie Sykes and I have long argued from and advocated—to today. He and I both say: nuts. We get into the touchy subject of racism a little. And also the subject of tribalism. The “call of the tribe,” as Mario Vargas Llosa says [https://www.amazon.com/Call-Tribe-Mario-Vargas-Llosa/dp/0374118051/ref=sr_1_1?crid=TTEX37AGIJWP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.i2EshnJQKvyj-JQY-jfasccPHivMgBV0vHB-Tliy5nr6Q8bedDOehOz4-60GzCPsGbiU5uR85JDT3luM9V1_HA.nxcE5YpGGod1hwDRylT62NCzGZnZSSGHSHC3lbaY-U8&dib_tag=se&keywords=call+of+the+tribe+vargas+llosa&qid=1775766732&sprefix=call+of+the+tribe+vargas+llo%2Caps%2C176&sr=8-1]. Tribalism seems to be natural in man—and bless all those who overcome it. I know what it is to hate one’s political enemies. I stuck with Reagan through everything—Iran-contra, Bitburg … I loved him, yes, but, even more, I hated his enemies. You can’t bear for the “other side” to win, even for a second. As I say on this program, I half-believed the conspiracy theories about Bill Clinton: the Mena airport, Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell … I half-believed the “birther” theory about Barack Obama. What are the conspiracy theories about Donald Trump? I’m not sure there are any. Everything is out in the open—often trumpeted and bragged about! In our discussion, Charlie Sykes and I talk about Rush Limbaugh: his influence, his legacy. Also, the media today. What does “the media” mean, by the way? Does the term make sense any longer? Does anyone sit down at 6:30 for the evening news—with Rather, Brokaw, or Jennings? Anyway, you will want to hear Charlie, on our various topics. Before we close, we talk about refuges from politics. Charlie lives in the Wisconsin woods and “touches grass” every day. In New York, I may not touch grass much, but they do have mats at the golf range. Thanks for listening. Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe [https://www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]