TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Philosophy

    The Law & Liberty Podcast

    Law & Liberty contributing editor James Patterson interviews prominent authors and thinkers. A production of Liberty Fund, Inc.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Back to School Aug 30, 2024
    Show notes

    As students head back to classrooms, host James Patterson welcomes education experts Frederick Hess and Michael McShane to the podcast. We are still finding the “new normal” after Covid lockdown shook our education system—and public confidence in schools. Too often, our schools are guided by ideas developed by policymakers, intellectuals, and administrators who are separated from the needs of the classroom. Ranging from cell phones in class to school choice, from gender theory to administrative bloat, the conversation points in hopeful directions, drawn in part from their recent book, Getting Education Right. Related Links:Frederick Hess and Michael McShane, Getting Education Right “Taking on the College Cartel,” Frederick Hess and Michael McShane (Law & Liberty)“Opening Doors for School Choice,” Frederick Hess (Law & Liberty)“A Unified Theory of Education,” Frederick Hess and Michael McShane (National Affairs)Rick Hess Straight Up (Education Week)Old School with Rick Hess (Education Next) Liberty Fund is a private, non-partisan, educational foundation. The views expressed in its podcasts are the individual’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Liberty Fund. Transcript James Patterson: Welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. I’m your host, James Patterson. Law & Liberty is an online magazine featuring serious commentary on law, policy, books, and culture, and formed by a commitment to a society of free and responsible people living under the rule of law. Law & Liberty and this podcast are published by Liberty Fund. Hello and welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. Today is August 28, 2024. I’m James Patterson, and with me are my guests, Mr. Frederick M. Hess and Dr. Michael Q. McShane. We’ll be talking about K-12 and higher education in the United States, especially their most recent book, Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K-12, and College, published earlier this year on Teachers College Press. Mr. Hess is a senior fellow and the Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where he works on K-12 and higher-education issues. He’s the author of Education Week‘s iconic blog, Rick Hess Straight Up, and Education Next‘s popular Old School with Rick Hess. Dr. Hess is also an executive editor of Education Next, a Forbes senior contributor, and a contributing editor to National Review. He is the founder and chairman of AEI’s Conservative Education Reform Network. And Dr. McShane earned his PhD in education policy from the University of Arkansas and MEd from the University of Notre Dame and his BA in English from St. Louis University. He is an adjunct fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Director of National Research at EdChoice, where he studies and writes about K-12 education policy, including private and religious schools and the politics of education. He was previously a high school teacher. Gentlemen, thank you for coming on the Law & Liberty podcast. Rick Hess: Hey, thanks for having us. Michael McShane: Thanks for having us. James Patterson: Yes, this is very exciting. Lots of people are sending their kids back to school, probably fewer because some of them may be teaching at home. There’s been a lot of changes to the landscape of education. So before we get into the book, I wanted to ask you, what is the current state of American K-12 education now that we are firmly, and hopefully forever, past the COVID lockdowns? Rick Hess: Mike, do you want to take that? Michael McShane: Yeah, for sure. I mean, I think we’re in this really interesting moment, as you intimated there. There have been some serious changes in enrollment patterns. We’re seeing more folks that are homeschooling. We’re seeing an increase in states passing private-school choice programs that are allowing more and more students to attend private schools with government subsidies in order to do that. And there are just some of these broader trends. A lot of the work that we do at EdChoice, or a fair amount of work that we do, is in public opinion polling. And one of the things that I found most interesting recently was that there’s … When you talk about public opinion, the general polling question that you ask of, right track or wrong track, do you think that the American education system is going on the right track, or is it headed in the wrong direction? Historically, two things have been true. We’ve been asking this question for years, and it is that the closer you get to people, the more they like their schools. So people tend to say, “Schools at the national level are a mess, but the ones in my state, they’re probably a little bit better, and the ones that are closest to me, my local district, is even better than that.” And the second thing that you would see is that parents were much more positive about their local schools than the general population was. What we’re seeing for the first time in the last year or so is parent opinions of schooling just falling off the cliff. Parents are much less likely now, whether they’re talking about the national, state or local level, much less likely to say that they think that local schools are on track. And this is meeting up with similar polling that we have from teachers, that again, we’re seeing increasingly negative opinions from teachers if you ask them things like, “Would you recommend teaching to someone else?” or just talking about if they have confidence in their local schools. So, I think we are in this really interesting moment where there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the American K-12 education system. There are certainly opportunities that are emerging for new players to come onto the field, but it remains to be seen how successful those are going to be. We’re in the very early days of some of these new education savings-accounts programs or others. They could go one way. They could go another. So it’s a really interesting time, and we’ll probably look back on this particular period as a turning point, this post-pandemic era, of where education goes from there. James Patterson: Yes. So there have been a lot of federal and state efforts to improve education. You go through them in the book. The most recent one that many people maybe our age, a little older, will remember is No Child Left Behind. Their format has been really to treat teaching as input and test scores as an output, and you discuss some of the limitations, some of the things that were learned in handling education this way. What were the successes and what were maybe the failures that caused us to reevaluate how maybe we can think about education? Rick Hess: Yeah. I mean, one of the realities of education is that we’ve been trying to reform it pretty much since day one. So if you go back to the founding of this country, Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and others talked a lot about the kinds of schools that could promote a free people. Jefferson famously had his architect of the Virginia educational system, both at K-12 and then at the University of Virginia. So we’ve been doing this forever, and one of the realities is the higher up you go, the further you get away from education, from schools, from classrooms, the less ability you have to control what actually happens in them, because schools are incredibly complicated human places. The difference between a good classroom and a bad classroom usually comes down to a hundred tiny little interactions in the course of an hour. Whether a teacher knows who to ask a question to, how they ask that question, whether they know how to make a kid feel comfortable, put a hand on their shoulder, none of this can you touch from a state capital, much less from Washington DC. So when you start trying to reform or improve schools from on high, whether it was the push that followed Nation at Risk in 1983 or No Child Left Behind in 2001, what you do is you try to control the levers that you can move from on high. Well, what is that? That is the number of courses that kids take. That is the amount of money that gets spent. That’s how you measure what’s going on in schools. That’s how do you manage the paper requirements for who’s allowed to teach or how schools spend money or buy textbooks. And so what’s happened, time after time, most famously in No Child Left Behind, is that you’ve got well-intended policymakers trying to figure out how do you yank around these levers for schools, and then you’ve got parents and educators who are incredibly frustrated by the way that these blunt instruments play out in practice. And partly what’s going on today is that we’re living in the aftermath of … Between the 1990s push to raise standards and the 2001 No Child Left Behind, and the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top in 2009 with the Common Core, we’re living in the shadow of the frustration that was bred by all those ambitious efforts. James Patterson: Yeah. The thing about those curricula is that they did tend to be a little bit … How to put it? Oppositional, maybe, towards teachers. There was an attempt to tether performance of students to the outcomes of state testing. Was this a success? It doesn’t seem to have been, but you know more about this than me. Michael McShane: It’s funny. I think of what Rick just said, talking about all of those little interactions that take place within a classroom. I mean, I think that’s what we’ve learned. There was a big effort by the Gates Foundation. Others have tried to figure out, can we get the formula for what makes a great teacher, in theory so that then we could replicate that formula? And the thing is, it’s really hard to find because different teachers have different strengths and weaknesses. Different teachers run their classrooms in different ways. And while we have identified some methods … There’s been this whole science of reading movement that’s taken place. It’s been really interesting, and I think quite helpful, in identifying better and worse ways to actually teach kids how to read and the mechanics of it. So that’s true, and I imagine with lots of careful experimentation, we might find the exact better ways to teach fractions or solve simultaneous equations or things like that, those discrete little tasks. This bigger picture of what makes a great teacher, how do we have more great teachers, how do we get more into the profession, how do we keep them once they’re there, it turns out that, as your question implies, there isn’t really a mechanistic way to do that. It would be great if there was. It would make life a lot easier, but I just don’t think that that’s the case. James Patterson: That can be a bit disappointing to people who want to figure this out as an equation, that it’s more complicated than that. So, the book Getting Education Right, I think it’d be a little simplistic to call it a school-choice book because there’s a lot more to the book than that, but there’s definitely an emphasis on exploring new opportunities, new ways of doing education policy, that allows for greater variety. In a way, it’s responding to the problems you just described, namely, that there’s not a one-size-fits-all curriculum or pedagogy. So what does school choice really mean? What does it look like in policy terms? Michael McShane: Well, it can take a lot of different forms, and I think that that’s actually a mistake that a lot of people in the school-choice world make, that they take whatever thing is in vogue at that moment and say, “Okay, that’s what school choice is now.” So as I mentioned at the beginning, people are really fired up about these education savings-accounts programs that basically place a student’s K-12 funding into a flexible-use spending account that they can spend amongst different providers, so they could pay private-school tuition, but they could also pay for tutoring or special-education services or others. But that’s just one form of school choice. Historically, there’s been choice within the traditional public schooling system. Basically, anything that severs the connection between where students live and where they go to school. So it could be within their district where they attend a magnet school or some sort of special program, or they’re allowed to enroll in a school that’s across town but in the same district. Within the traditional public system but outside of the district, there’s inter-district choice that allows people to cross district boundaries. Some people call this open enrollment. States like Arizona, I think, have done this to great effect, and to a lesser extent, in places like Ohio and Wisconsin have given that a try at various times. And then there are charter schools, which are public schools but exist outside of the traditional management system. They tend to be independently operated and schools of choice that students can attend. So we have within the traditional public system, straddling the public and private system, and then all of these new private school-choice programs. Some people might be familiar with school vouchers or tuition tax-credit scholarships that have been around for some time now. This new generation of education savings accounts, but also now places like Oklahoma that are giving tax credits for private-school spending or even homeschooling expenditures and others. So, there are lots of different ways of mechanically providing school choice, but ultimately, school choice is about a couple of things, right? It is about empowering parents to pick the best school for their kids. It’s about empowering educators to try and create new educational models outside of the strictures that have existed in our existing system, whether that’s- Michael McShane: The strictures that have existed in our existing system, whether that’s collective bargaining agreements or other just rules and routines and norms, have developed over the course of, as Rick said, since before our nation’s founding, or even before I. And it’s about trying to create a more diverse pluralistic system, where different people can have different ideas of what makes the best type of school, and allow those folks to live out in that pluralistic way that our nation … Some of the highest norms and values of our nation has. So it could be any number of those things—it could be within the traditional public schooling system, it could be outside the traditional public schooling system, but if you’re trying to empower parents to make choices on behalf of their kids, you’re trying to empower educators to have the space to create great schooling environments, that’s when you’re over the target. Rick Hess: James, and if I can just piggyback on that, one of the points you made, you said, “Well, it’s not a book about school choice, that’s part of it, but it’s really not about that.” James Patterson: Right. Rick Hess: And I think that’s what makes what Mike was just saying so interesting. A lot of what you’ve seen on the right when it comes to school choice is a tendency to talk about efforts to empower parents, to empower educators, as an end in themselves—that’s how it gets talked about. And that’s actually been a huge problem because it means we don’t have a very coherent vision of what are we trying to do, other than expand choice. It’s choice for choice’s sake. And to the extent that we say anything else, it tends to be bound up in diatribes about how awful schools are, because of test scores or because of X. What Mike and I tried to set out to do in this book is address those two challenges very directly. One, we tried to say, look, empowering parents, breaking up the bureaucracy, and giving educators and families the ability to find the right solution for them is hugely important. But it’s only one piece of a much larger vision that speaks to the values that we want schools to impart, the opportunities that we need to think about in terms of the professional work of educators, how…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Politics as War Aug 21, 2024
    Show notes

    David Davenport, coauthor with Gordon Lloyd of How Public Policy Became War, discusses how we lost “the cool, deliberate sense of the community” in making public policy and instead turned to the metaphor of war as the basis for political action.


    England’s Troubles Aug 20, 2024
    Show notes

    Riots and speech crackdowns are only the latest symptoms of a growing factionalism in England along cultural lines. In a recent essay, Helen Dale argued that the kind of religious and ethnic divisions that emerged in the July elections reflect a new style of politics more familiar to Northern Ireland than to England. Dale, who will be a regular guest host of the Law & Liberty Podcast, joins James Patterson to discuss this “new sectarianism”—and also how her Australian countrymen performed in the Olympics. Show Notes: “The New Sectarianism” (Helen Dale for Law & Liberty)Helen Dale’s Substack“The Sporting Genius of the English-Speaking Peoples” (Rachel Lu for Law & Liberty) Liberty Fund is a private, non-partisan, educational foundation. The views expressed in its podcasts are the individual’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Liberty Fund. Transcript James Patterson: Welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. I’m your host, James Patterson. Law & Liberty is an online magazine featuring serious commentary on law, policy, books and culture, and formed by a commitment to a society of free and responsible people living under the rule of law. Law & Liberty and this podcast are published by Liberty Fund. Hello and welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. My name’s James Patterson. Today is August 15th, 2024, and today, we are speaking with the one and only Helen Dale. She is a senior writer at Law & Liberty and has won the Miles Franklin Award for her first novel, The Hand That Signed The Paper, and read law at Oxford and Edinburgh. Her most recent novel, Kingdom of the Wicked, was shortlisted for the Prometheus Prize for science fiction. She writes for a number of outlets, including The Spectator, The Australian, Standpoint, and Quillette. She lives in London and is on Substack at helendale.substack.com and on Twitter @_helendale. Today, we are going to be talking about a few things. One is her dynamite article, “The New Sectarianism,” which appeared on Law & Liberty on August 7th. But before that, we are going to talk about Australia’s Olympic performance. Helen Dale, welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. Helen Dale: Hello, James. Thanks for having me. James Patterson: So before we got started, I had some questions about some of the athletes, one of whom became something of an internet sensation for not being terribly athletic. But my goodness, how on earth does Australia manage to put so many incredible Olympic athletes out into the world, given its relatively small population? Helen Dale: Australia is a sporting phenomenon for two reasons. One of which is the obvious one: it’s a very rich country. If you balance how you have to use several different measures to work out which is the wealthiest country in the world and where it’s genuinely wealthy, it’s not just oil wealth concentrated in a few hands and that kind of thing—it tends to be competing with say, Switzerland and Norway for the wealthiest country in the world and is ahead of the US. So it’s very rich. Very wealthy country. So it can afford to pay for lots of things, both at the state and the private sector levels with sport. So that’s part of it. The other reason is biological or genetic. Australia has a deceptively large population in genetic terms, despite only having 26 million people, roughly. 27, it might be now in it. Someone was saying it was the population of Texas, roughly. I don’t know what that is in America, but about there. But the thing is, Australia has the highest proportion of overseas born people in its population sourced from all over the world of any developed country. And I think to get to the equivalent even in developing countries, you have to include places like Israel with a very unusual history of immigration there for particular socio-cultural and political reasons or countries that are war zones full of refugees. So you have a large influx of people sourced from all over the world and an immigration policy that for many years and to a large degree still does, although it’s a little bit more subtle about it now, was assimilationist, I would say, and is now integrationist. So you get very, very wide out-crossing. So you get all these people drawn from all these different countries all over the world, and then they all marry each other and have children. And this has been going on since 1945. So there have been a number of generations for all these people to marry each other and have children and then their children to marry each other and that’s why you look at the Australian team and you go, what ethnicity are they? They’re vaguely white-ish, but not really. So that is why. It’s a genetic quirk and the country has the wealth to exploit it basically. There are many, many talented sprinters in West Africa, the ancestors of the Jamaicans and African-Americans, and you don’t get to see them. You see the Jamaicans, and you see the African Americans because they’re from wealthy countries. James Patterson: I’m wondering if this is also … Oh, by the way, you recommended before the podcast another Law & Liberty piece by Rachel Lu, “The Sporting Genius of English-Speaking Peoples.” Helen Dale: Yes. It is my favorite piece of hers and quite possibly my favorite piece that I have ever read in a magazine. James Patterson: I need to unseat Rachel, so I need to get writing. Helen Dale: Yes. I think it is. There have been a number of very good pieces on the Law & Liberty magazine or in the Law & Liberty magazine, and I’ve been very pleased with some of my own writing. Yes, writers are allowed to be smug. But that piece of Rachel’s, The Sporting Genius of the English-Speaking Peoples or words titled to that effect, which I know wouldn’t be hers. Brian will have written that or something. Is pretty much my favorite piece because it just captures exactly a real thing that is very intense in Australia. What she describes in that article, and she applies it to basically the British Commonwealth plus the USA appears in an exceptionally intense form in Australia and underpins that Olympic success. James Patterson: I know we want to get on to the podcast, but I have just one other question. As you were talking about the Australian experience, it reminded me of one of my favorite new comedians, Jenny Tian, who is making a sensation on TikTok. And she is Chinese, I think by origin. Both of her parents are Chinese. But she speaks with the thickest Australian accent I’ve ever heard. Helen Dale: Australian-born Chinese. Yes. ABC. James Patterson: And so I think it appears not just in the athletics, but also in the comedy. One of the ways that you make these groups get together and understand each other is with humor. Helen Dale: So yes, Australia is a very, very distinctive and unusual country, remember. It produced all those medals and produces all these fabulous athletes, but also produced Raygun, who was the joke of the Olympics. And I will write about this, I think. I’m currently running a Twitter poll, and if the Twitter poll says, “No, don’t write about this, Helen. We expect you to write about your technical analysis of this piece of legislation currently going through the Commons or ping-pong between the Commons and the Lords. That’s what we want you to write about, not random second-rate Aussie breakdancers.” James Patterson: @ _HelenDale. Vote for her to write the piece. I am very excited about it. But unfortunately, we must go from this very exciting topic, this very fun topic, to something considerably more dire almost as though we were delaying the inevitable here. But your piece, The New Sectarianism, has really made a sensation. Go ahead and give us an explanation of what your position is and what it has to do with the state of English politics. Helen Dale: The reason I wrote that piece, having seen a few casual comments from people here and there, or hearing a few talking heads make this observation, was I thought in the general election we saw in England as opposed to where you normally see it, which is in Northern Ireland, genuine religious sectarianism. And what I tried to do using my knowledge of theology and comparative religion, something that I have for reasonably eccentric personal reasons, using my knowledge of both Islamic theology and the theology that underlies the historic troubles in Northern Ireland, I basically compared and contrasted them and tried to provide some history, some roots for the emergence amongst Muslims in England. And came to a very, very alarmed conclusion. And my alarmed conclusion is this. Because it is emerging in England and not in Scotland and not in Northern Ireland, it’s a new form of sectarianism. And England has not had this kind of intense religious conflict for a very, very long time. The English specifically have forgotten what it looks like. So you’ve forgotten what sectarianism looks like. So you’re getting all of these very blithe and glib comments. And because the general election and the assassination attempt on Trump were so close together, you got the British pundits just doing their customary thing of, “Oh, I see the Americans are shooting each other again, or the Americans are trying to shoot their presidents or shoot their ex-presidents. Oh, that’s just what Americans do, isn’t it? Let’s take a pop at him. We don’t like him.” And yadda yadda yadda. And there were all these boatloads of smugness getting on. And I picked out a really egregious one, put that in the article, and people can read it at their leisure. But there was a lot of it. And the thing is, a few people who are history nerds and the kind of history nerds who keep statistics … People like Ed West, but not just him—he’s the one who comes to mind, and he does write a lot of this—were going, “But hang on. Okay, the Americans have lost four presidents, and we’ve only lost one prime minister, but they haven’t lost a congressman since 1978, whereas we lost an MP, David Amess, only two years ago.” Blah, blah. And those conversations started to happen. And so I just sat there and thought, “No. You really, really do need to take seriously the possibility that this is something that is a real problem in Britain, in England, and you’ve done it to yourselves the same way that the Plantation of Ulster you did to yourselves.” James Patterson: There’s this irony to this, which is that the new sectarianism you’re describing has with it a weird partial healing of the old one between Irish separatists and unionists who marched together against increased immigration in Northern Ireland. Helen Dale: Yes. I don’t know enough about the province, although people from Northern Ireland whose opinions I rate like Ian Acheson did retweet my piece and praise it, and he is a retired prison governor from Northern Ireland and really, really knows his stuff. I don’t know the full significance of that cooperation that was going on in the province. Because my knowledge of sectarianism and what I’m writing from trying to get across to people to not treat it in this glib and casual and light, flippant way. My knowledge of sectarianism is from Scotland via my parents, obviously. Well, Scotland and the Republic. But it’s that very specific Scottish kind of sectarianism which has a relationship with Northern Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. But outside of certain footballing history, the violence has abated to a large degree. It’s just nastiness now. Whereas I don’t quite know enough about Northern Ireland to know what’s going on there, but you can get that. You can get that uniting of people against what they perceive to be a common enemy. James Patterson: Yeah. I’m sorry. My parents lived in England. I was born there. I remember my mom’s … One of her favorite stories was that she was in line—this was before I was born, and she had my older sister with her, and she was being a bit raucous. And a woman behind her, a good English lady, said, “This country would be doing so much better if it weren’t for all the foreigners.” And my mother briefly was like, “Oh, I wonder what she’s … Oh, she’s talking about me.” So what has happened to England? Helen Dale: I am amazed at the normal comment that is made about Americans in those circumstances is, “Oh, dear Americans, they really don’t have an inside voice.” James Patterson: Yeah. That is- Helen Dale: That’s the British expression. James Patterson: I should mention that my- Helen Dale: Americans lack inside voices. James Patterson: The other thing that’s funny is my mom is of course, self-conscious on this point is that Americans don’t think they’re foreigners. It took her a second to realize that she was the subject of the passive-aggressive comment. Helen Dale: That of course being the sport at which Great Britain … Well, England certainly will always win the gold medal. James Patterson: That’s right. Helen Dale: Passive aggression. James Patterson: That is always coming home. They may never win the World Cup, but when it comes to snide remarks- Helen Dale: But they will always win passive aggression. James Patterson: So what has happened to England where they moved from … Maybe I think to the extent that they had immigration during the period when my parents were there is maybe Jamaicans or people from the Caribbean, but apparently there’s been a pretty serious migration to England and it’s been primarily under conservative watch. Helen Dale: Well, the big uptick in immigration started in 1997 with Blair. James Patterson: Oh, okay. Helen Dale: Okay. So the first probably third to a half of it, is Blair. James Patterson: My mistake, then. Helen Dale: The second half to two-thirds of it, I think, is probably a 60-40 split, and it has been the conservatives, particularly the conservatives, since 2019. That is when it has gone absolutely and completely bonkers. If you can get it … I don’t have the figures off the top of my head because they are so easy to get. You can get them from the ONS website and they’ll give you pretty graphs if you press the right buttons and you can get the figures from any one of a number of the British pollsters or whether it’s YouGov or whether it’s Survation or whoever. They’ve all done this enormous … It created during COVID and it did drop down and it was just basically the boat people, and that was basically it. But then just went enormously through the roof from 2021, completely mad, unbelievable. We were importing the city of Birmingham, which is the second city of the United Kingdom and just completely unconstrained immigration in addition to the small boats and the asylum seeker problem. And this was after the conservatives had promised the British people that they would copy Australia’s points-based immigration system. And the reason so many British people know about the Australian system is simply because of historic, very high rates of immigration between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. This is really important to remember. It really is the British Isles. It’s not just the UK to Australia. So everybody in both places is very familiar with a very different immigration system that is selective and that has also largely rejected the trendy global sympathy for refugees. The current big debate in the Australian Parliament, literally as I got off the website of the Australian newspaper, for which I used to regularly write, is about the Australian current left-leaning center-left Labour government wants to give 1200 visas to refugees from Gaza. And the opposition is rejecting this, saying that they are much more likely to be terrorists because it’s very clear for people from Gaza support Hamas. And the attempt by human rights people in Australia to argue as they do in Britain or the United States that you are trying to choose between refugees and say, you’ll pick those, but not these to which Australians of both stripes politically going back to 1990, can just say, this is…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Constitutional Tensions Aug 05, 2024
    Show notes

    In a time of partisanship and dissention, can the Constitution provide the kind of unity we seek? Yes and no, argues AEI Senior Fellow and author Yuval Levin in his new book, American Covenant. The Constitution offers a kind of unity, but a limited one, that falls short of what many hope for. He joins host James Patterson to discuss constitutional history, our present social tensions, and what’s wrong with our institutions. Show Notes: American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation―and Could Again Law & Liberty symposium on Levin’s book “Constituting Unity,“ a Law & Liberty forum led by Levin Liberty Fund is a private, non-partisan, educational foundation. The views expressed in its podcasts are the individual’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Liberty Fund. Full Transcript: James Patterson: Welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. I’m your host, James Patterson. Law & Liberty is an online magazine featuring serious commentary on law, policy, books and culture, and formed by a commitment to a society of free and responsible people living under the rule of law. Law & Liberty and this podcast are published by Liberty Fund. Hello and welcome to the Law & Liberty Podcast. It is Wednesday, July 10, 2024. My guest today is Dr. Yuval Levin. Dr. Levin is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute where he holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy. The founder and editor of National Affairs, he is also a senior editor at The New Atlantis, a contributing editor at National Review, and a contributing opinion writer at the New York Times. At AEI, Dr. Levin and scholars in the Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies research division study the foundations of self-government and the future of law regulation and constitutionalism. Dr. Levin served as a member of the White House domestic policy staff under George H. W. Bush. He was also executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics and a congressional staffer at member committee and leadership levels. He is the author of several books on political theory and public policy most recently American Covenant: How The Constitution Unified Our Nation and Could Again on Basic Books that recently came out. This book will be the subject of our podcast today, Dr. Levin, thank you so much for being on the Law & Liberty Podcast. Yuval Levin: Thank you very much for having me. James Patterson: So I have to admit that reading this book gave me an overwhelming amount of nostalgia. I have right here, I believe on page 157, Daniel DiSalvo and Robert Saldin on a page. Those were people I went to graduate school with. Yuval Levin: Oh wow. Okay. James Patterson: So I was reading … Jim Ceaser is in there. So it was like being back in Charlottesville back in the 2000s. So the thing about the book I want to start with though is that we see a lot of academics treat the Constitution mainly as a source of positive law or even like a raw material in order to devise their own policy outcomes. What have we really lost in that sense of treating the Constitution and what is it that you recommend we bring back? Yuval Levin: Yeah, thank you. In a way, these two points are connected because the book really does try to bring to bear a different kind of academic engagement with the Constitution than we now normally find. Those two relatively younger political scientists that you mentioned are very rare now. They’re students of Jim Ceaser who was also very rare, a real political scientist who nonetheless rejects the basic approach that most political scientists and legal scholars now have to the Constitution, which is, as you say, that view of the Constitution as just a means to preferred policy outcomes. This book draws on a different range of scholars. Certainly, Saldin and DiSalvo are among them, but I would say the leading lights intellectually for it are scholars like Walter Berns and Martin Diamond, Herbert Storing, Harry Jaffa in some ways, who certainly disagreed among themselves on a variety of questions, but had a view of the Constitution that was rooted in a classical sense of what constitution means, a classical sense of what a regime is and how it relates to the life of a society. And I think what we lose when we see the Constitution purely as positive law is the sense that ultimately we as citizens and as human beings are shaped by the kind of political society we live in, and that the Constitution shapes us in a particular way in the direction of being Republican citizens, people who take ownership and responsibility for the society they live in and for their common fate as a people. And the Constitution has much more to offer us than just a legal framework. It is important as a legal framework and I do think we should see it first and foremost in that way, but it’s also a framework for political life that I think can teach us a lot about what has gone wrong in contemporary American political life, why it is that our politics seem so dysfunctional, what it would mean to reach toward a more functional way of living politically. I think the Constitution is an incredible resource for thinking politically in the broadest and deepest sense, and the book really does try to recover that sense of what it would mean to think of it that way. James Patterson: Yeah, in the first chapter, there’s … It concludes with a discussion of three elements of American life. Competition, negotiation, and productive tension. These run contrary to a kind of contemporary instinct. I see this a lot among my students. If they’re writing something, and they don’t quite know what the significance is, like if they need to write about The Federalist Papers or they need to write about something by Lincoln, they reach for the term unity. This seems to be something that they want to say is a good thing, and this actually leads them sometimes to overlook or maybe even discount these three things that you’ve mentioned are actually central, competition, negotiation and tension, in a way that unity actually isn’t. So this being a controversial position, defend it. Why should they not accept unity? Yuval Levin: There is certainly an idea of unity at the core of what I’m working to draw out of the Constitution, but it’s a very distinct idea of unity. I think of it as a Madisonian idea of unity. And it says that unity means not thinking alike but acting together. Ultimately, no political community can consist of unanimity, of people actually just having the same opinions about crucial questions. Politics is always about what divides us. It is a way of dealing with division. A society that genuinely was not divided would not need politics. And what it means to see the political as a way of dealing with disagreement is to see that unity ultimately is a way of facilitating common action. Politics is about action. It is an answer to the question what shall we do? And in pursuing an answer to that question about collective action, we necessarily have to have ways of dealing with difference. And in a sense to say that unity means not thinking alike but acting together, you invite the question, how can it be possible to act together when we don’t think alike? I think the American constitution is in many respects an answer to that question. How can we act together when we don’t think alike? Its various institutions are meant to facilitate that. Its modes of action are meant to facilitate that. And crucial among those modes of action are these three that you described, competition, negotiation, and a kind of constructive tension. The Constitution deals with competing factions by letting them compete over and over. First and foremost maybe just through the fact of elections. The Constitution is fundamentally democratic and we do have a lot of elections in the American system. An unusual number at various levels of government. And offices are set so that they expire at different times. And somebody is always running for something, and that means that our politics is always competitive. There’s also competition between the states and the national government. There’s competition between the houses of Congress and between the branches of the government. That kind of competition is a way to force everybody to be as appealing and as coalition-minded as they possibly can. And then of course, negotiation is how you actually build coalitions and sustain them, and negotiation is at the center of how the Constitution wants us to solve problems. That’s why Congress is the first and foremost branch of the national government. It is the venue where the representatives of different factions of American life deal with each other, negotiate bargain, and reach agreements that they can all tolerate. I think the notion of constructive tension may be the least familiar of these, but it is a characteristic way in which the Constitution resolves some of the deepest differences that were evident at the time of its creation. It takes what seems like contrasting options and says yes to both at the same time. So should representation in Congress ultimately empower states by population or empower them equally? This was maybe the most controversial question at the Convention, and the answer the convention arrived at was, yes, we’re just going to do both. One house of Congress will be by population and the other will represent the states equally, and the tension is always going to be alive in our system as a result. Or think about the presidency, as the president’s supposed to be an elevated head of state, like a regal king, or is the president supposed to be a clerk, someone who just carries out what Congress decides? The answer is yes, the president is supposed to be both of these things even though there’s an obvious contradiction between them. That means that the office of the president contains a kind of tension that allows it to shift its weight without losing its balance in times of change. And a lot of the stability of our system is made possible by the fact that it doesn’t seek to resolve every question. It turns the political life of our society into a project of dealing with these permanent questions all the time, and in that way keeps us from falling apart when we’re divided. It gives us ways to be divided that can be constructive of collective action. James Patterson: So I growing up belonged to a lot of different organizations that had formal meetings that also use things like Robert’s Rules of Order, and these kinds of techniques for administrative meetings were something that I just took for granted as experiences, but I think that’s actually a weird thing that I was doing. And so I suspect that a problem that people have with competition, negotiation, and tension is that they have very little formation in what those things are like and in the process of meeting out compromises, but also sometimes just losing. And this comes up a lot in the book where one of the causes for unity is the desire to get everything you want when you finally win. Yuval Levin: Yeah, absolutely. I think that what you describe is a kind of characteristic American experience, and it’s actually an example of how the Constitution shapes our national character. Tocqueville jokes in a letter to his father that if you get three Americans together, they’ll elect a treasurer. And I think there’s a lot of truth to that historically, that Americans have thought in terms of committee work. Whenever there’s something to be done, we create a committee and we follow rules of decision-making and bargaining, and we act as though we are following the rules of the Constitution even though we’re not bound by them. And I think that gives us a kind of experience in problem-solving in groups that is enormously valuable in a divided society, in a diverse society. Because working in groups is difficult. Other people are hard to deal with, other people are disagreeable, and oftentimes we need a structure, a way of dealing with differences. I think that part of what has happened to our political culture in the last few decades is that we are engaged in much less civil society activity like that as Americans just in our own lives, and that means we have much less of the habits that are necessary for this kind of constitutional logic to make sense to us. We haven’t seen it at work quite as much. And so we tend to think that the point of political engagement is to get my way and I get my way by winning the election. If I won the election, then I’d be in charge. The American constitution actually doesn’t work that way. What you win when you win an election in our politics is you win a seat at the table and what happens at the table is committee work and negotiation and bargaining. And this isn’t how every democracy works. A lot of the parliamentary systems in Europe, for example, in South America and Asia, work by empowering majorities. So however narrow your majority, if it’s a majority, it has all the power. It controls the government. The American system has always been more wary of majority power than that and has always forced majorities to broaden themselves before they can be empowered, to deal with minorities in order to get anything done. That does slow things down. It does put barriers in the way of efficient government. But it also requires us to build broader coalitions and to build a deeper legitimacy for public action. I think we’ve lost an appreciation for how important that is. We take that legitimacy for granted, even though our institutions are clearly losing their legitimacy in our time, and we don’t see that these mechanisms that slow us down are actually ways of making politics more tolerable in a vast and diverse democracy. I think a lot of the critics of the Constitution today are pointing to the European systems, pointing to other kinds of democracies, and saying, “Look, they’re much more efficient. Norway and Belgium: They get things done much more easily and quickly. They’re much proportionally representative.” It seems to me that the fact that we can even compare ourselves to Norway and Belgium is an illustration of how well we are governed by the constitutional system. The United States is not like Norway and Belgium. The United States is more like India and Brazil. It is a vast, immense, diverse democracy, but it’s much better governed than India and Brazil. Our system is very well-suited to governing a vast and diverse democracy. We take it for granted. And so we think we could do better, we could be more like Belgium, and I don’t think so. I think we have to respect the ways by which we live with the fact of our immensity and our diversity, and that requires seeing why the Constitution works the way it does and helping it work better. James Patterson: Here in the chapter The Constituted Republic, there’s a section that I really enjoyed, especially the way that you put it, and so I just want to quote a little bit from here. If you have the book, it’s on page 74 at the bottom. The framers clearly assumed that a distinct set of virtues in the people was essential to the kind of government they were proposing. These prerequisite virtues were not of the highest kind of human excellence, but they were demanding a set of Republican commitments. So a two-part question here is I thought the founders were skeptical of morality as a backstop to things like tyranny or injustice. The second question is something that I guess is a little bit more complicated, which is what’s republicanism? Yuval Levin: Yeah, it’s a very important question and a very challenging question. There’s certainly a lot of truth to the fact that the framers wanted a system that did not require perfect virtue all the time because they recognized that it would be populated by human beings, and they knew, as Madison famously says, that enlightened statesmen would not always b…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Observing American Freedom Jul 19, 2024
    Show notes

    On the first episode of The Law & Liberty Podcast, host James M. Patterson sits down with Richard M. Reinsch, who was the founder of Law & Liberty and the host of our original podcast series, and is currently a Senior Writer for the magazine. Listen to Patterson and Reinsch discuss contemporary trade policy blunders and prospects, the economic resilience of blue-collar towns, and Reinsch’s new projects at the American Institute for Economic Research. Richard M. Reinsch II is Editor-in-Chief and Director of Publications at AIER. He is co-author with Peter A. Lawler of A Constitution in Full: Recovering the Unwritten Foundation of American Liberty. He writes regularly for National Review and Acton’s Journal of Religion & Liberty. Further reading: Richard’s writings at Law & Liberty AIER’s The Daily Economy Peter Augustine Lawler and Richard M. Reinsch’s A Constitution in Full Philip Hamburger’s Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Liberty Fund is a private, non-partisan, educational foundation. The views expressed in its podcasts are the individual’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Liberty Fund. Transcript James Patterson: Welcome to The Law & Liberty Podcast. I’m your host, James Patterson. Law & Liberty is an online magazine featuring serious commentary on law, policy, books and culture, and formed by a commitment to a society of free and responsible people living under the rule of law. Law & Liberty and this podcast are published by Liberty Fund. Hello and welcome to The Law & Liberty Podcast. I’m James Patterson. This is my first podcast taking over as host, and I just want to thank everyone at Liberty Fund for trusting me with this great responsibility. Made all the more difficult because my first guest in this capacity is with the original host under what was then called Liberty Law Talk. We’ve changed it slightly, to his great dismay. I’ll get a tongue-lashing during this interview, no doubt. And that is Richard M. Reinsch II. He is now the Editor-in-Chief and Director of Publications at the American Institute for Economic Research. He’s a senior writer here at Law & Liberty, but he also founded it and was editor for 10 years before moving on to AIER. His most recent book was the book, A Constitution in Full: Recovering the Unwritten Foundation of American Liberty. He co-authored the book with the late Peter Lawler, a man of great intellectual gifts. So Richard holds his own in this book wonderfully, and he’s also a regular writer for the National Review and the Acton Institute’s Journal of Religion and Liberty. Most recently, I just enjoyed reading his review of Yuval Levin’s most recent book, American Covenant, and we hope to have Yuval on in the near future. So, Mr. Reinsch, welcome to The Law & Liberty Podcast. Richard Reinsch: James, thank you so much for having me. It’s wonderful to be on. I think the title is great, The Law & Liberty Podcast. Liberty Law Talk was my idea, but of course, I think I was. … There are a couple of things I do right, one of which is to put up good content and find great people to interview. As far as branding, titling, and promoting things, I always came up short in that regard. So, I think the title change is good and apt and reflects what the site is. I think you’re going to be a wonderful host, and all I ever did was read great books, read great essays by great authors, and try and ask them intelligent questions, and I’m sure you can do that as well, James, even better than me. James Patterson: Thank you so much, Richard. Check’s in the mail. So, we are looking at a little bit of a sort of history here of Law & Liberty. This is your deal, this is your thing, even if you are not running it anymore. Tell me what went into its creation. Richard Reinsch: Yeah, the idea, so what I started Law & Liberty, you’ve got this organization, Liberty Fund, that I had been working for at that point for a number of years that has this anchoring effect, if you will, on classical liberal, libertarian, conservative academics and public intellectuals. Inviting them to conferences all over the world, reading classical foundational essays and books on any number of subjects. And my thought was we do an online presence when it comes to economics. We do nothing when it comes to law, political thought, history, and literature, and we should embark there and put together really smart essays, debates, book reviews, and podcasts that would reflect what liberty is in the conference seminar room online. And we could do that. We could bring in a range of thinkers who didn’t necessarily have to agree with one another but had to be willing to be a part of a website where they would act together if not necessarily always agreeing with one another. And we would have sort of a robust conversation. I think from the beginning, we had Mike Rappaport, he had a new line of thought-out original methods, originalism, which was you should do originalism according to the interpretive methods of the founding, his co-author in that regard, John McGinnis joined him shortly thereafter. We had Mike Greve. Michael Greve has his book, The Upside Down Constitution, which is I think sort of the standard right now in academic federalism, had come out and he was writing great essays on federalism, which was in vogue at the time because we were in the Obama administration. And the Obama administration was doing everything possible to squelch federalism and Republican attorneys general were pushing back. And Mike Greve was right there with great commentary and also reminding us that federalism was not just this sort of vertical federalism, that conservatives tend to think of it as just states’ rights and states want to govern themselves. It’s that, but it’s also states being free in a lot of ways to govern themselves economically, commercially, and fiscally, and not have everything decided for them by the federal government through the Commerce Clause. And he brought in a lot of historical examples to talk about that. So, I think we really made a mark early on. We didn’t necessarily have a massive audience, but we had a devoted audience of people who appreciated the commentary we were putting forward. And I think we were sort of positioned well to embrace what was happening within conservatism at that time. Another thing: This debate has been somewhat forgotten with the rise of Trump in 2016, but we had excellent debates with Randy Barnett, his co-author, Evan Burnick, Clark Neely and others on what kind of originalism should be our originalism. Should it be libertarian originalism or more of a judicial restraint originalism? And I think at the time, we were one of the few voices arguing for the former. Not necessarily that was the only thing we were doing, but we definitely had a lot of interesting voices in that regard. Adam White, and Mark Pulliam among others. Mark Pulliam, of course, is still writing for the site on a frequent basis. So, I think in that regard, we were immediately adding. And then the book reviews, we had this amazing network of people to pull from to help launch this site. And that’s everyone who would attend the Liberty Fund conference, we would reach out to them, and they wanted to be a part of what we were doing online. And people were delighted that there was a place where they could write thoughtfully, and deeply, and it not be sort of cabin into clickbait or short pieces or op-eds, but they could really talk about what they believed in. That was all appreciated, I think, from the beginning and helped make the site something that at the time, The Federalist was now very new. It was a very different website, but they wanted to reprint our articles. And that sort of told me we were doing something multifaceted in that regard. The idea was always deep, elegant, thoughtful writing and arguments from speakers for whom ideas and the truth about being constitutional, having small government, having a vivacious civil society, all of that really mattered. And we didn’t want to compromise in any respect. James Patterson: The thing about it, coming out in January 2012, it had been a couple of years since the weekly standard had been closed, and a lot of people kind of felt that vacuum and this kind of filled that gap. You talked about the Federalists, that actually I’d forgotten that they often republish stuff by Peter Lawler. And that’s actually how I found out about Long Liberty. The Federalists was kind of a different news source back then, or a commentary source. I actually wrote for the Federalists as a young author, not as necessarily very formed. I read Peter’s piece at The Federalist, and it said, “This is from Law & Liberty.” And I went there and I was like, “Peter, can I write for this? The site looks great.” So, that’s one of the things about it is that I’m going to use the word for you so you don’t have to say it about yourself, but this is a prestige outfit. And in a way, the prestige outfit with getting really excellent scholars, getting really excellent thinkers, doing a lot of hard work, was a natural fit for the Liberty Fund, more so than even The Weekly Standard was because it can kind of be immunized from a lot of the pressures that something like The Weekly Standard had to suffer with. Richard Reinsch: No. And I think The Weekly Standard closed down more like 2018. But I think your point is still valid. The Weekly Standard was a voice of second-wave conservatism and a voice of that foreign policy and that domestic policy and had sort of in certain respects, grown stale and did not have the same audience. And I think my recognition when we started Law & Liberty, what we needed was sort of voices from throughout, if you want to say the conservative spectrum, classical liberal spectrum, who actually wanted to think holistically about, so we’ve got 70 years of history here post-World War II thought in America about the ways in which progressivism is wrong. We’ve got a lot of silos that have gone up in that regard. Who can actually talk between and among them, find out what’s best and what’s wrong, and go from there? So we brought out, I mean, we brought out voices who were not necessarily household names at this point. Some were, many were, but many were not. And many were just really deep thinkers that I knew about through going to Liberty Fund conferences or just doing a wide range of reading. And we just gave them opportunities and see what they want to do. And as I’ve learned, great writers want to be heard, and if you can connect them with the right opportunities and the right ideas, they can do wonders for you. So, that’s on any number of subjects. I mean, particularly Philip Hamburger obviously didn’t need Law & Liberty, yet we made his book on the administrative state something we promoted endlessly and wanted to bring out in public argument as much as possible because I made the decision that this was just such a valuable historical work on not just the administrative state the way American conservatives have thought about it, but Philip Hamburger had uncovered the deep common law ways in which the administrative state compromised our liberty. And so we talked about this book endlessly on the site, and that became one example of many of how I thought we were doing the right thing. We also talked about Carl Schmitt a lot. We anticipated, and as you know, James, Carl Schmitt becoming the court philosopher of the integralists of the post-liberals, of the post-constitutionalists. We talked about him in a number of essays, and why he was both mesmerizing but also dangerous and just wrong. So I think that’s maybe a way of segueing into saying, has the right became unbound in 2015 and 2016? I think we were very well positioned. We saw it coming, we diagnosed it. And I think as someone recently said, integralism seems to have come to an end after about an eight-year run, we might say. But one of the reasons why it came to an end is a lot of great people came together to repudiate it, and I think Law & Liberty, if it’s remembered for nothing else, will be remembered for that amongst many other things. James Patterson: Let’s hope it’s not remembered for the host misremembering the date. Actually, no, weekly standard close. Actually what happened is I wanted to double-check the date, and I read a number I was looking at rather than the date, but it’s December 14, 2018. Richard Reinsch: But I think your example as I was saying is, and you see this now, it’s the Republican Party conservatism shaken up by the 2016 events, and yet what remains is the thoughtful men and women who drill down very deeply to see what’s wrong and what’s right and write about it very courageously. And at times that’s earned Law & Liberty, we’ve been on the subject of a lot of criticism from various people. At the same time, those people don’t neglect reading us and reading the site. So I think that’s a testament to what happens when you put together commentary that isn’t presentist and just geared towards trying to win an argument. James Patterson: A funny thing about Law & Liberty is that the emergence of Donald Trump as the new standard-bearer for the Republican Party meant that a lot of people had to make a choice. National Review wrote their against-Trump issue, and what’s funny is if you go back and look at that magazine, a lot of the people who wrote articles for it have very different views than they do now. Richard Reinsch: Rusty Reno among others. James Patterson: There are many people. Richard Reinsch: He’s a big one. James Patterson: But people had to make a choice, and Law & Liberty just said, “No. We’re going to have a debate over this. We’re going to happily engage in a high-level thought on the question.” But certainly, the way that it affected Law & Liberty, the emergence of Trump, was the nature of the questions posed, and I think you’re right. When I think back to the early days of Law & Liberty, once I had started reading it, it was much more a law and economics, federalism, lawyerly kind of site. Issues that have become less salient, at least to readership somewhat since things moved over towards a Trump or even approaching a post-Trump world, one of which included this effort to create a regime ideology like post-liberalism or integralism, something that this was refused to do at Law & Liberty, and part because it’s contrary to the mission, right? Richard Reinsch: Right. And I think in many respects it was thinking about that moment. To me it was clear as it was not to others, the Trump phenomenon, the post-liberal phenomenon, the challenging of the conservative movement was also due to a lot of failures of the leadership class. And while some of those I think were wrongly perceived, some of the failures were real, and you don’t get a figure like that and you don’t get ideas like that unless something has gone wrong. And so then the challenge becomes not just to criticize and to put people down, but to one, listen to them, hear them, and then try and articulate the reasons why constitutionalism is good, civil society is good, free markets are good. I mean, how many articles has Law & Liberty done around trade and emphasizing free trade is good? People who are willing to trade with one another don’t do so unless they perceive it to be good. And to the extent that there are exceptions to it, they’re rooted in national security and really drawing out the deep reasons for why we settled on free trade. Same thing with something like religious liberty, but also not being afraid to point out as negatively of things seem to be going right now in terms of constitutionalism on the right, there are massive problems happening with the progressive left and the ways in which they go this on and have in many ways started this whole series of unfortunate events. So I think our goal was to tell…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Religious Community and Democratic Education Jul 03, 2024
    Show notes

    James Patterson is joined by Rita Koganzon of the University of Houston to talk about the Amish, the Satmar, and the puzzle of democratic education. Brian A. Smith: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. This podcast is a production of the online journal, Law & Liberty, and hosted by our staff. Please visit us at lawliberty.org and thank you for listening. James M. Patterson: Hello, you are listening to Liberty Law Talk, the podcast for Law & Liberty. Today is September 29th, 2023, and my name is James M. Patterson. I’m a contributing editor to Law & Liberty, as well as professor and chair of the politics department at Ave Maria University, a fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy as well as the Institute for Human Ecology, and President of the Cicerone Society. Before I introduce today’s guest, I wanted to make a brief statement of mourning for Dr. Ellis Sandoz, who died on September 19th this past week at the age of 92, New Orleans native, father of four, 10 grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, but people who are familiar with Dr. Sandoz listening to Liberty Law Talk may know of his incredible contributions to the work of classical liberalism and political philosophy, including his edited volumes called the Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730 to 1805. These are two volumes of the most important sermons that helped shape the politics of their day, as well as reflect on the beliefs and standards for constitutionalism held by outstanding religious leaders of the period. He was also the founder of the Eric Voegelin Institute. Many of the people you’ll hear on Liberty Law Talk were participants in Voegelin Institute panels, including today’s guest. Before we move on to her, I just wanted to read from the foreword that Dr. Sandoz wrote in 1994 for the first volume of the political sermons. “Liberty is thus an essential principle of man’s constitution, a natural trait which yet reflects the supernatural creator. Liberty is God-given; the growth of virtue and perfection of being depends upon free choice in response to divine invitation and help in cooperative relationships. The correlate of responsibility is that liberty is most truly exercised by living in accordance with truth. Man’s dominion over the earth and the other creatures, his mastery of nature through reason, is subject to no restraint but the law of his nature, which is perfect liberty. The obligation to obey the laws of the creator only checks his licentiousness and abuse.” Dr. Sandoz will be missed, and his contributions are many. And now, I’ll move on to today’s guest, Dr. Rita Koganzon, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Houston. While there, she teaches political theory and American politics. Her research focuses on the themes of education, childhood authority, and the family and historical and contemporary political thought. Her first book, Liberal States, Authoritarian Families, Childhood Education, and Early Modern Thought, examines the justifications for authority over children from Jean Bodin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Wow, that’s a pair. And explores how and why Locke and Rousseau departed from their absolutist predecessors by refusing to model the family on the state by nonetheless preserving authority, even extreme authority over children within the family, for the sake of liberty of adults. She’s working on a second project that focuses on education from the early republic in the United States through the 20th century. But today, we’re talking about something a little different. We’re talking about her recent presentation at the 2023 American Political Science Association, as well as two things that she’s published recently on Judaism and religious liberty. The first is The Satmar Option, which she published for the summer 2023 edition of the Hedgehog Review, and her outstanding chapter from the book Religious Liberty and Education. It’s titled Pork Eating is Not a Reasonable Way of Life: Yeshiva Education Versus Liberal Education Theory. Dr. Koganzon, welcome to Liberty Law Talk. Dr. Rita Koganzon: Hi, thanks for having me. James M. Patterson: Sorry for the long preamble, but I’ll give you now plenty of time to describe this central insight that really has stuck with me since your presentation on the difference between what you refer to slightly paraphrasing here as the kind of Amish paradigm for religious liberty and religious minorities versus what you call the Satmar option. So who are the Satmar, and how are they different from the Amish? Dr. Rita Koganzon: Well, the Satmar are a Hasidic religious group. They are from Hungary originally, but they sort of crystallized, actually, in New York after World War II, the survivors of the Holocaust came and sort of reconsolidated the Hasidic group, and they were led by a rabbi. And they now live mainly in Williamsburg and in this independent community in Upstate New York called Kiryas Joel. It’s kind of complicated to define what exactly Hasidic Judaism is or how it is analogous to certain kinds of Christianity because the ecclesiology of Judaism is not really the same as Christianity. So people will often say, well, this is a sect, which I guess is fine as a description. I don’t know that they love it so much, but it’s a sort of Hasidic group that follows this particular rabbi who actually has passed away. And now they have a problem with figuring out who they’re following exactly. And so they’re different from the Amish in a lot of ways, namely that they’re not Christian. But in terms of the political question, there’s been a kind of treatment of religious minorities in American constitutional law, and also, I think, in American public opinion, that is very sort of Christian-centric in terms of the way we think about religious descent from the mainstream. And so the Amish are a kind of radical form of religious descent from the mainstream in that they don’t want to live what we would consider a modern life, that they reject a lot of modern technology, that they reject living in cities. They live in their own rural communities that are based largely on agriculture. And so they look very different from sort of modern Americans in this respect. And they maintain a certain kind of separation from mainstream, secular, modern, whatever appellation you want to use, Americans. And so then the question with them becomes, okay, well, when there are sort of generally applicable laws passed in state legislatures or by Congress or whatever, are they required to follow them if somehow following these laws would obstruct their ability to practice their religion? And this comes up in the 1972 case, most famously Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the question is if there are compulsory schooling laws in the state of Wisconsin, which are facially neutral, and they require everybody to go to school until they’re 16, do the Amish have to comply with this if for them going to school until they’re 16 would potentially disrupt their ability to remain in the Amish faith? And in 1972, the court decided that they don’t have to comply with these compulsory schooling laws because they’re a sincere religious minority and they have a First Amendment free exercise right to, in a sense, be exempted. Although that’s not the technical legal understanding of what’s happening here, that is the practical effect of what’s happening here. They’re exempted from these compulsory schooling laws. They’re allowed to pull their kids out of public schools early. And as the Amish put it, in this case, they’re going to give them an Amish education at home, essentially an agricultural education and an education in their community. And so that is somewhat controversial, I guess. But as far as public opinion goes, that’s acceptable to Americans becomes the basis for a lot of subsequent homeschooling legislation and other sorts of exemptions from public schooling. And the thing about the Amish is that they’re very, I think, admirable to Americans in a certain way. They resemble kind of what America looked like at the founding or sort of what we imagine it looked like at the founding. And the important thing from the court’s perspective is that they’re self-sufficient in the sense that they don’t rely on any government assistance. And not only do they not rely on any government assistance, they actually do not contribute to or draw from Social Security. And so there really are very sort of distinct from the government. And so what I’m calling the Amish paradigm is a way of thinking about the terms of religious liberty as a kind of contract in the United States. And so what the Amish offer a model of is this kind of contract between the majority and a dissenting religious minority where the majority, in a sense, is willing to let the religious minority have some autonomy over its own internal government and be sort of less beholden to the federal government or the state governments, or maybe beholden is not the right word, but maybe something more involved with, regulated by. That’s key. Secular government in exchange for their self-sufficiency. And they’re not calling on these secular governments for assistance. And I think that has been sort of the mental model that we hold for justifiable religious exemptions from generally neutral laws, regulations, and things like that. And the challenge that the Satmar posts to this is that they’re urban. They are not self-sufficient in the sense that they’re not an agricultural community that grows its own food or anything like that. They live in Williamsburg, in Brooklyn, or in a suburb in Upstate New York, in New Jersey, in other very densely populated places. And they do receive government welfare and transfers. They receive a sort of direct aid like SNAP benefits and things like that. They also receive aid for schooling and things like that because they qualify for Title 1 funds. It’s hard to say that they’re poor. The issue is they have a lot of kids so even when they’re working and they make an income, it’s very hard to support eight kids or 10 kids on a single income or even both parents’ incomes. And so they often qualify for federal and state poverty funds because those are based on family size. So they pose a different kind of dilemma, I think, for us because then the question is, well, how far are we going to allow them to practice their religion, especially to the degree that their religion is in conflict with mainstream norms when at the same time they are sort of reliant on federal and state aid. So they’re not self-sufficient, so shouldn’t we have some sort of control over them? And this comes up very saliently in the last few years. There’s been a conflict in New York City because they run their own private school system, and the allegations of the New York Department of Education and the New York City education bureaucracies that they are not doing a sufficient job of educating their children, that they don’t teach enough secular subjects, that they don’t teach English. The Satmar speak Yiddish. And so should the state and the city governments be allowed to intervene in their school curricula and change them or bring them up to date or mainstream them, however, you want to think about it, on the grounds that this is a violation of their children’s rights and we’re paying for those schools? That’s the other salient thing. So that’s what I see as the contrast. There’s a kind of vision of a very self-sufficient, almost sort of noble agrarian group who’s practicing a divergent way of life in the United States. And we’re sort of willing to forgive that so long as they don’t depend on us or ask us for anything. But that’s not really a common model of how religious dissent works in America anymore. Most people don’t look like the Amish. They look a lot more like the Satmar. They’re doing something out of the mainstream, out of the ordinary, but they are pretty much integrated into American society and are sort of entangled in government institutions and also are often recipients of transfers. James M. Patterson: The subject of the Amish as a kind of exemplar reminded me of one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen called For Richer or Poorer with Tim Allen and Kirstie Alley, about a man and a woman from New York who retreat from a scandal to live on Amish country. And there’s a kind of a rediscovery of what it means to be authentically human by living among the Yoders, which is, of course, one of the people in the Wisconsin v. Yoder case. Dr. Rita Koganzon: Well, I think that’s just an extremely common Amish Mennonite surname. They’re not all related. James M. Patterson: Oh, okay. They’re not related to fictional people. Dr. Rita Koganzon: No, it’s an extremely common surname. So you’ve been to UVA, right? If you drive just north of UVA, there’s a great children’s farm market thing called Yoders, where they have a petting zoo and everything. Those people aren’t related, either. James M. Patterson: That is actually a great recommendation. If you need to stop off with your kids, please go there. They were goats on a giant contraption that they’d built. It’s incredible fun. And the food is amazing. Dr. Rita Koganzon: Yeah. James M. Patterson: We are- Dr. Rita Koganzon: Unrelated Yoders. James M. Patterson: We are not endorsed by Yoders, but we will gladly take any shoofly pie they will send our direction. We have just a real rich chapter here, and there’s a lot that I want to talk about that Pork Eating is Not a Reasonable Way of Life. The thing that you point out first in this chapter is that the preoccupation that many post-Second World War liberals had was with the possibility of a Christian theocracy. You say here, the 1980s, 1990s, “Fear of Christian theocracy can no longer reasonably motivate our considerations when so many of those asking for considerations are not Christians.” So this older understanding that even by the nineties seemed to be pretty antiquated remains more or less enshrined in our laws. So, talk to me a little bit about what that liberalism was and why it was so preoccupied with this particular case of Christian theocracy. Dr. Rita Koganzon: Yeah, so I mean, the rise of the religious right and the election in 1980, I think sort of set off panic bells among many people on the left, that suddenly there is this insurgent movement of right-wing Christians who basically had not been heard from for a long time. I mean, not that they weren’t there, they just weren’t politically involved in the 1950s and 1960s. They started to become more politicized in the 1970s. And this takes a lot of sort of liberals, especially academic types, by surprise, and they become very worried. And so if you think about Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale, that’s a response I think is written in the early eighties, is a kind of fever dream or fever nightmare of what she thinks might happen if these people were really to come to power. And I mean, they came to power through Reagan, but they were just part of a conservative coalition that included obviously many other parts. And so the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision starts to look kind of nefarious or ominous to the left, and then there’s a second decision. I think this is just a circuit court decision. It doesn’t go all the way to the Supreme Court called Moser v. Hawkins in the early eighties, which deals with or involves a group of what we call fundamentalists, whatever that’s supposed to mean, who are challenging the secular humanist curriculum of their public school. Their argument is that actually secular humanism is its own religion, and it’s being imposed on us evangelical Christians as though it were neutral, but there’s actually nothing neutral about it. It’s a replacement for our religion, and that’s a violation of our religious liberty. They lose. The court ends up saying that this kind of secular humanist curriculum is not religious, but they make a really important p…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Shakespeare's Power Jan 15, 2024
    Show notes

    Eliot A. Cohen joins Rebecca Burgess to discuss his new book on Shakespeare and power politics, The Hollow Crown. Brian Smith: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. This podcast is a production of the online journal Law and Liberty and is hosted by our staff. Please visit us at lawliberty.org. Thank you for listening. Rebecca Burgess: Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention. But today, in fact, we are not left to any arbitrary leniency of a willful goddess of inspiration to get us going for this latest episode of Liberty Law Talk because our theme today is Shakespeare and politics, the stagecraft of statecraft, and even the statecraft of stagecraft when it comes to understanding the halls of power and those who would be in it. My name is Rebecca Burgess, and I’m a contributing editor for Law & Liberty, a senior fellow at the Yorktown Institute, and a visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum. But importantly, for today, I am a partisan, wholly and devotedly, of all things Shakespeare. And joining me today is Eliot Cohen, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Robert E. Osgood Professor at Johns Hopkins University. Formerly counselor of the Department of State. His books include The Big Stick and Supreme Command. Thrice welcome, Eliot. What news on the Rialto, as we might say? Eliot Cohen: Well, Rebecca, first and foremost, thanks for having me. It’s great to be here. I lead a very odd life in some ways, bouncing between military matters at the moment, which is my professional expertise in one way, and then Shakespeare. It’s odd, but it’s nice to be back with Shakespeare because the rest of the world’s pretty grim right now. Rebecca Burgess: All right. He provides us comfort and also much thought to chew on. So I thought, in this midwinter moment, when everyone is settling down in front of their fires, all sated with holiday cheer, that it is a truth universally acknowledged that all thoughtful people want, or are in need of, a good book and a good conversation. And voila, you have gifted us The Hollow Crown: Shakespeare on How Leaders Rise, Rule, and Fall. Just out recently by Basic Books. And so I thought we could use the next hour or so to talk about what Shakespeare teaches us about politics today or helps us analyze those in the halls of power. The characters within Shakespeare are always of interest, whether it’s Henry V, whether it’s Richard II, or whether it’s Prospero. And I’m going to needle you about some you didn’t put in there, including the prince from Much Ado About Nothing and that band of unserious statesmen, not statesmen yet, the princes in Love’s Labour’s Lost, who have to learn how to become serious statesmen. But I would love to start off by asking you: What has teaching Shakespeare and introducing Shakespeare into your syllabi at Johns Hopkins or others taught you anew about international relations, grand strategy, or politics? Eliot Cohen: Well, that’s really a whole range of questions. Let me just start as a teacher. So, I’m about to become emeritus at Hopkins and shift over full-time to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I’ve had a 34-year career at Hopkins, which has been wonderful. The last course that I taught was for freshmen, and it was a freshman course on Shakespeare. And I have to say—it was just a wonderful way of rounding out a teaching career because what you see is how young people, who maybe have never really been exposed to this in a really serious way, they may have had an encounter with it in high school, but they’re now at a stage where they can begin to appreciate it. You can see how it opens a world for them, and that’s a delight. And it’s, in a way, at a time when we could all use a bit of optimism—it’s a source of optimism that you realize there’s always going to be a new generation coming on, and they can respond to the classics very, very powerfully. So that’s the Mr. Chips in me, if you will. I began … I’ve always loved Shakespeare. I began thinking about teaching it after seeing Henry VIII, which is a play not often put on. There used to be some dispute about whether it was even by Shakespeare. I think most people think it is now a collaboration with another playwright named John Fletcher. And if your listeners will bear with me, I’d like to read the bit of the soliloquy that got it all started. So what’s happened is Cardinal Wolsey, who was Henry VIII’s chancellor, has just been deposed, and it’s sudden, and it is a sudden fall from power. And here is what he says: “Farewell! A long farewell, to all my greatness! This is the state of man: to-day he puts forth The tender leaves of hope, to-morrow blossoms, And bears his blushing honors thick upon him: The third day comes a frost, a killing frost, And,—when he thinks, good easy man, full surely His greatness is a-ripening,—nips his root, And then he falls, as I do. I have ventured, Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders, This many summers in a sea of glory, But far beyond my depth: my high-blown pride At length broke under me, and now has left me Weary, and old with service, to the mercy Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me.” So my wife and I saw the play, and I was really struck by that soliloquy because my immediate reaction was, I know that guy. I mean, I’ve been in Washington now for well over three decades, and I’ve seen all kinds of things, and I was so taken by that, I took it … I was meeting with a bunch of students who were all graduate students by the way, later on, and I said, “Let’s talk about this.” One thing led to another, and before you knew it, I was teaching Shakespeare to a bunch of students at a professional school of international relations. And I think the thing that strikes you, as you study Shakespeare from the vantage point that I have, which includes a fair amount of government service as well, is, first, how a lot of the fundamental predicaments of political characters just don’t change. He also mentioned how there are phenomena that he captures that are still very much with us. You just need to learn how to do the translation. So, if I can give just one example of that. So, one of the plays that I have always enjoyed teaching is Coriolanus, which is about the great Roman general who becomes a traitor and comes to a sticky end. But, first, he’s an incredibly successful general. The problem is he has no political sense whatsoever. I’ve known a few generals like that, actually, in my time. Rebecca Burgess: Zero political prudence. Eliot Cohen: Right. Political prudence is not their strong suit. But there comes a point where he’s just been tremendously successful in battle, and they’re about to make him consul, which is the thing he really wants—it’s the honor he really wants. But he has to kind of go along with the people, with the plebs. Until they ask him to show his wounds, to take off his toga and see the scars of battle, and then he detonates, and everything goes downhill from there. And I was teaching this to a group of graduate students, including about half a dozen people who’d been in very hard places and done hard things in places like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And I said to them … So these are people in their late twenties, early thirties, some of them. I said, “Don’t feel obliged to answer this question, but has anybody ever asked to see your wounds?” And the conversation just exploded. Rebecca Burgess: I bet. Eliot Cohen: Because, yes. I mean, psychological wounds, not physical wounds. And so I think part of what Shakespeare gives us is the ability to see things that are around us, much more vividly in a way, because he’s abstracting us from our current context. I could go on, but let me pause there and see where you want to take this. Rebecca Burgess: Well, in every direction, of course. But on this particular note of showing wounds, I think it is of interest, and we’ll probably touch on it later. I think it’s inevitable that in the rise to power, or in statesmanship, how much do you have to show the work of statesmanship to be a successful statesman? Are you supposed to make it look easy? Are you supposed to reveal your trials and tribulations? And I think there’s a difference, perhaps, between Shakespeare’s day and ours, between that. It seems like, today, we emphasize the personal story of the politician. But is it any different than that showing of the wounds, or showing of the interior, if you will? Eliot Cohen: Yeah, we like people to show their vulnerabilities. But, the point that Shakespeare is making with the story of Coriolanus is we’ve always wanted our leaders to show their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Now, we’ve taken it to a pathological extent. So I’m going to just give an example. So when they finally do the memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, what do they do? They make a big point of having him in a wheelchair. In point of fact, FDR went to great lengths not to be photographed in a wheelchair because that was not the image he wanted to convey. To go back to Shakespeare, what you see is a lot of leaders who actually have all kinds of burdens, pathologies, and so on, and who do make considerable efforts to conceal them. Actually, Henry IV, the father of Prince Hal, who became Henry V, talks about that about how he tried to conceal himself. But the truth is, those things are always there. And I think one of the things Shakespeare shows us is, if you pay close attention, you can see what they are, which is a useful thing if you want to understand the people who are your leaders. The challenge that Shakespeare gives us, and the more I’ve read Shakespeare, and reflected on the more kind of diabolically cunning I think he is, he just gives you frequently little glimpses into a personality. And if you’re not paying a lot of attention, you won’t notice, which is kind of what the personality wanted. But what Shakespeare is going to do is say, okay, I will tell you the things you need to know, but you’ve got to watch carefully. And that’s one of the things that Shakespeare can teach the student of politics, is the art of close observation. Rebecca Burgess: Well, so you already quoted Cardinal Wolsey’s beautiful speech, it is so powerful. And it is from that point of vulnerability, a man who has realized that power is no longer in his grasp. Is this where we start to study power and those in power, from their vulnerabilities or the vulnerabilities inherent, or is it just one of many paths? Does it open up something, or are we missing something if we start from the standpoint of vulnerability? Eliot Cohen: I don’t think that’s where you start. This is Cardinal Wolsey at the end of his career, not at the beginning of his career. Rebecca Burgess: Right. Eliot Cohen: No, I think you look at all kinds of other things if you want to see how people actually get into the business of acquiring powers. The way I organized the book is I didn’t go play-by-play. I began with one large section on how people get power, how they use power, and then, finally, how they lose it. Again, one of the things that’s a bit sick about our current world, is that is where we want to start, with people’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Not that you shouldn’t pay attention to them, you should, but first you want to see, I think, what is it that makes them effective? What is it that makes them succeed? I mean, if you take Prince Hal, for example, who becomes Henry V … Of whom, by the way, I have a very dark view, that is of King Henry V. Rebecca Burgess: You do. Eliot Cohen: A very dark view of this is Henry V, the Shakespearean character. The real Henry V, I couldn’t care less. But you see him kind of having a glorious old time, hanging around with a bunch of lowlifes in the east cheap, in what’s probably a brothel. And it’s comic, and it’s good fun. And here, again, you get to Shakespeare, the close observer. Actually, this is one of the ways in which Prince Hal is learning how to be a king, and that becomes clear, I think, later on in the play. But, again, you have to pay close attention if you want to see how this is going to feed into his ability to inspire people, to manipulate people, which he does a lot, and to rule. Rebecca Burgess: Right. The setting is, in fact, quite important for Shakespeare. I know you spend a little bit of time talking about how important, when you’re talking to those who actually put on Shakespeare plays, they say that figuring out the staging, figuring out the costuming, sometimes is where they start from. It’s not the secondary consideration, it is where they start from. For Shakespeare, the opening scene, the first scene, and the second scene of the first act, in fact, are always of prime importance. In Henry IV, it is so well done because you start in the halls of power before the king, and it’s the exact same speech, the exact same dynamics that are in scene two with Prince Hal in the tavern. And so Shakespeare is telling you, here is politics high and low, here is England, for Prince Hal to figure out how to govern and rule England. He’s going to have to figure out how to understand both of these on their own and how to tie them together. And I’ve always thought, gosh, darn it, that’s so brilliant, how can we not do that, too? Eliot Cohen: Well, you’re absolutely right. You always need to pay attention to how Shakespeare sets the stage initially. It’s also very important, I think, to pay attention to the very end, where he’ll occasionally drop this little thing on you, where, if you pay close attention, you go, aha. So at the end of Henry V, for example … Throughout you’ve had the chorus, who is cheering Henry the V on and saying, “Oh, how can we possibly capture this guy’s greatness in just this little theater of ours here, and touch of Harry in the night,” all that stuff. And at the very end, the chorus says, “Thanks for being here. By the way, he died young, and his son was an infant, and all his conquests kind of fell apart. And we’ve talked about that before. See you later.” It’s just a couple of lines, but if you look at the end of that, of Henry V’s story, you go, listen, why does Shakespeare put that in there? Why does he have to end on a two-line downer? And I think the reason is he’s explaining a lot of the stuff that went before. One of the things that I talk about, I use, there’s a technical term for it, it’s what the Greeks called anagnorisis, where you suddenly realize the truth of your situation. That’s what happened to Wolsey there, where he goes, I’ve been swimming on a sea of glory, and, poof, it’s all gone. It happens to individuals, but it can happen to us as readers of Shakespeare and people who observe Shakespeare. I think if we read it closely enough, where you go, “Oh, oh, that’s what’s going on.” But just to connect it to the real world of politics, that’s very important too. I think one of the problems that we have when we talk about foreign policy, military affairs, and so on, is a lack of close attention to what’s going on right before our eyes frequently. Governments, in particular, fall prey to this, and I’ve seen it firsthand, but I’ve also seen it in other places as well. You get caught up in government talking to itself, you get caught up in highly classified this and that, and you forget to say, “Whoa, that’s right in front of me, that actually means something,” and to pause and reflect on what it means. Rebecca Burgess: Right. And there’s a timing aspect to that as well, right? And I wonder sometimes whether the pace of government in our daily life is just so frenetic now that we … Unless someone is astute enough to carve out some time for themselves for reflection, the reflection doesn’t happen. And the consequences of that, of course, as you just mentioned, we see all the time. But I’ve wondered about that, especially recently, since my own time in coming to DC, whic…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The First Empire Dec 18, 2023
    Show notes

    Eckart Frahm joins host Rebecca Burgess to discuss the ancient Middle East and his recent book, Assyria: The Rise and Fall of the World’s First Empire. Brian Smith: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. This podcast is a production of the online journal, Law & Liberty, and hosted by our staff. Please visit us at lawliberty.org, and thank you for listening. Rebecca Burgess: “When time was young and world in infancy, man did not strive proudly for sovereignty. But each one thought his petty rule was high if of his house he held the monarchy. This was the golden age. But after came the boisterous son of Chus, grandchild to Ham, that mighty hunter, who in his strong toils, both beasts and men, subjected to his spoils. The strong foundation of proud Babel laid Erech, Accad, and Culneh also made. These were his first, all stood in Shinar land. From thence, he went Assyria to command. And mighty Nineveh, he there begun, not finished till he his race had run.” Those are the opening lines from Anne Bradstreet’s lengthy first of four poems on the earliest great empires called The Four Monarchies. She was no respecter for word economy. Her title runs The Assyrian being the first beginning under Nimrod, 131 years after the flood. A mouthful. Bradstreet was the first woman to be recognized as an accomplished New World poet. She emigrated to Salem from England in 1630, one of a group of Puritan pilgrims, just as she arguably introduced Assyria to the New World. So today, we’ll be steeped both in novelties and in the ancientness of things, also via Assyria, the world’s first empire, being our main topic of conversation. And with that, welcome to a new episode of Liberty Law Talk. My name is Rebecca Burgess. I’m a contributing editor for Law & Liberty, a senior fellow at the Yorktown Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. Joining me today is Eckart Frahm, a professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University. Previously, Frahm was a research assistant and assistant professor of Assyriology at Heidelberg. He has also worked on cuneiform tablets in the British Museum in London and in the Iraq Museum of Baghdad, among many other museums and other collections. Professor Frahm, so many welcomes. It’s truly splendid to have you join us today. Eckart Frahm: Yeah, thank you very much for having me. It’s a pleasure and an honor. Rebecca Burgess: This spring you released a new book, Assyria: The Rise and Fall of the World’s First Empire published by Basic Books. In an instance, I think of the Amazon algorithms getting things right. I chanced upon your book because, for my own research on empire, I’d been ordering probably a library’s worth of books on Persia, Greece, and Rome. Also on Egypt by German Egyptologist, Jan Assmann. And thankfully or coincidentally, you begin your account of the rise and fall of Assyria with a very dramatic story of a bloody encounter between Assyria and Egypt during the reign of Esarhaddon that results in the capture of the Egyptian crown prince, much of the royal harem, and with enormous amounts of booty being taken back to Nineveh, then Assyria’s capital on the Tigris River in Northeastern Iraq. Before me, cities, behind me, ruins is the inscription that encapsulates this classic imperialist behavior, rather reminds me of the Front Toward the Enemy warning on Claymore mines. But from that story, you weave a very richly textured account of Assyria as the world’s first empire whose legacy in fact is the idea and form of empire, however protean you reveal that form historically to be. And it seems to me that in putting archeological artifacts, cuneiform text, and historical scholarship in conversation with Persian, Greek, Roman, and importantly biblical texts and attitudes, you set out to do at least three things with your book. Feel free to tell me where I’m wrong later. The first is to brush away the cobwebs of history from the picture of who and what Assyria was. The second to create an audience for the centuries-long silent voices of Assyrians themselves, who we can now hear in their own words. I thought that was a very lovely image that you opened with of these long silent voices suddenly being able to speak again. And third, to reveal precisely that Assyrian legacy to the world of empire and the surprising modernity, if you will, of what’s been called the first half test of the history and the relevance of that age to our own pandemic, great power competition age. As you weave in so much of this cultural history, I hope our conversation can touch on, not just the politics, but the deep cultural echoes that have concealed as much as revealed Assyria throughout history, from Herodotus to Shakespeare, Rossini, and Lord Byron, to perhaps the particular staging of Adolf Hitler’s suicide with his wife and dog. And to Saddam’s very kitschy, anonymously published 2000 romance novels inspired by Assyrian warriors and queens. And with that, the almost beginning. What is the surprising anti-imperial origin story of Assyria as you put it? Eckart Frahm: Yeah. When you hear of Assyria and you know a little bit about it, then you usually think of Assyria as this great imperial power, this militaristic, geopolitical entity, and that is what it will eventually become. But it is indeed quite remarkable that initially, Assyria is almost the opposite of an imperial state. In fact, there is no Assyria at the very beginning. Assyrian identity starts off at the little sort of town on the Tigris, some 60 miles or so south of the modern city of Mosul, the city of Ashur from which Assyria of course eventually gets its name. This is also the name of the Assyrian state god worshiped there. And it really is just a small place initially in the third millennium, largely dominated by southern powers. Remember we are here in Ancient Mesopotamia where writing, and cities, and all these things were for the first time invented in a way. But this happened primarily in the south, in Southern Iraq, in places such as Uruk, or Ur, and so on. And during much of the third millennium, the city of Ashur was probably largely dominated by those southern powers. Actually, we don’t have particularly good evidence for this time. But when for the first time sources allow us to reconstruct life at Ashur, and Ashur, so to speak, really enters the stage of history. It is a small city that doesn’t receive its wealth from war, but instead from trade, from long-distance trade. So this is something quite striking. While in the south, a number of city-states and territorial states seem to be engaged in almost perpetual warfare with each other, Ashur stays away from the fray. And instead, merchants from the city of Ashur engaged in long-distance trade, mostly trading tin from the East, and textiles from the South, and also made in Ashur itself by women from the city trading this for silver in Anatolia. We have a lot of evidence for that from a place named Kanesh in Central Anatolia, some 24,000 clay tablets. This is the type of document on which much of the reconstruction of Assyrian history actually rests. They are almost indestructible. Fortunately, these people didn’t write on paper, papyrus, or parchment, which wouldn’t have been preserved, but on clay. So we have these texts on there. And what these texts reveal about the city of Ashur is interesting that at this time, this is a city not ruled by powerful kings, but rather one which has something kind of akin to a mixed constitution in the way Polybius has described it for Ancient Rome that is, you do have a kind of dynasty of hereditary rulers. But rulers isn’t even the right word. And these people weren’t allowed to be called kings, and their power was very much restricted. So they were allowed to put their names on texts, temples, and things like that. But there wasn’t even a palace. They didn’t even live in a palace. There wasn’t a royal court or anything. And they shared the little power they had with two additional institutions. One was the city assembly, kind of a popular assembly of free male citizens. So of course, Ashur too included women and slaves. Probably not that many slaves, but still there were slaves, who were not part of this. But nonetheless, I mean, an almost democratic institution that would, for instance, deal with legal matters. And there was also the institution of the so-called Limmu, as it is called in Assyria and it’s often translated as Eponym. On one hand, this was the individual after whom individual years were named. And that indicates that this Limmu was in office only for one single year. He was selected by lot, probably from the leading families of Ashur, certain aristocratic dimension to it. This idea of choosing politicians througha lot has actually just saying that in the sidelines received some interest by modern political scientists who are not particularly enchanted with the quality of the political class these days, and believe that we too might profit from such a process. Anyway, they do this. So they have these eponyms in place who are in charge of the city hall, where taxes are determined, rates and measures, and things like that. So these two institutions compete with the institution of the ruler, was not called a king. So it’s actually altogether a political situation that seems really remarkably modern in many regards. Rebecca Burgess: It seems more accurate then to say that Ashur was a city-state, and one that predated Greece. So perhaps Herodotus is not quite correct or needs a correction, an outside correction when he, in his account, rather binary account of Greece where everything is liberal, and free, and the barbarian other, which is very intriguing. But also on that note, I was struck by your invocation or your quote of an inscription from a stela that was erected near the Step Gate, a structure in Ashur where justice was administered, precisely about this question of justice and royal rule. So the quote is, “May justice prevail in my city. Ashur is king. Erishum is Ashur’s steward. Ashur is a swamp that cannot be traversed, ground that cannot be trodden upon, canals that cannot be crossed. He who tells a lie on the Step Gate, the demon of the ruins will smash his head like a pot that breaks.” It’s very direct and very dramatic. But there seems to be a direct linkage of the divine royal power and justice and even nature, the physical world of nature. So you touched on this a little bit. What can be pieced together of the dominant understanding of justice in relation to the ordering of society at Ashur, and everything from the religious cult of Ashur to the lack of palaces that you mentioned? Eckart Frahm: Yeah. I mean, this being a Law & Liberty podcast, it’s of course absolutely right for you to ask the question about law and legal practices. And yes, you’re right. There’s this text that talks about law being administered at the so-called Step Gate, which is near a place where later the ziggurat, the temple tower would be located. At this time, probably it wasn’t yet there, and where this popular assembly would actually come together and deal with these matters. It was not something that was solely handled by a very small group of elite members, but it was really all these free individuals, apparently. They were in charge of administering law. And it seems, based again on documents from Kanesh, as though in this location near the Step Gate, there were a number of stelæ inscribed with actual law. We haven’t found those. So altogether because all these early, well, layers are very deep down. The site of Ashur haven’t really been reached by archeologists. Most of this is known from this other place on Kanesh. But what we learned there is that those stelæ included laws such as, for instance, that no one, no merchant in Ashur was supposed, on punishment of death actually, to sell gold to anyone from Babylonia or from the Hurrians, who lived around the city of Ashur. So this sort of economic protectionism in place, and gold was apparently considered primarily a medium for storing wealth rather than for exchange. Exchange was actually handled through silver. So silver was the money of the ancient that he is including. The money in this earlier Assyrian history. So this is just one example of those laws inscribed on those stelæ. Now, the people of Ashur were not the first to have the written law. Written law is actually an invention from Ancient Mesopotamia, and it started not that much earlier. So these laws would be from the 13th century, perhaps BCE. The earliest written law that we actually have documented is from Southern Mesopotamia, from the reign of a king by the name of Ur-Nammu, whose law code, the Ur-Nammu Law Code is from roughly 2090 or so. And we see already with that law code, and then later with famous law codes, such as the Laws of Hammurabi, which are the most well-known laws from Ancient Mesopotamia, that these laws often have some monumental dimension. So the Hammurabi Laws, some of your listeners may know that they are primarily known from a large stele with an image of Hammurabi receiving insignias of power from the Sun God, a stele that is now in the Louvre in Paris. And there are some 300 laws inscribed on it. So what the people of Ashur have in place with this law is nothing that they invented where they came up from it first, but they too participate in this legal discourse. And this law is guaranteed in a way. This is what this inscription that you mentioned shows. It’s guaranteed and execution is supervised, well, by the God Ashur. And this inscription says something else, namely that Ashur is the actual king. I mentioned that the hereditary rulers of Ashur were not allowed to use the title king. That title of king is reserved for the God Ashur. So with that, in addition to these earthly dimensions of governance in Ashur, you also have a divine dimension. There’s an almost theocratic element to it. And to a certain extent, we might be able to talk about it a little later. This conception of Ashur being the actual king of Assyria remains in place. You also quoted these strange statements about him being a swamp that cannot be traversed. So in very nature, that’s very unusual for Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamia, otherwise, the gods have anthropomorphic dimensions. They behave and look like human beings. They participate in all sorts of events, and wars, and have families. Ashur does not really. Eventually, he gets these things from other gods, but he’s very malleable. He’s in a way a god without qualities almost. I mean, that’s actually quite convenient as Ashur undergoes some major transformations over time. The god too undergoes these transformations and becomes a more warrior-like deity. Initially, it isn’t that at all. But when Ashur becomes a more belligerent state, then the God Ashur too assumes the qualities of a warrior god, and so on. Rebecca Burgess: Well, speaking of those transformations and that gravitation towards more belligerence. So there’s around the 14th century BCE, which you identify as the proper birth of Assyria. You note how Assyria kind of abandons its more peaceful mercantile ways and embraces policy of military expansion. What transformations are occurring internally in Assyrian political and social institutions that are prompting this? And who are those peoples and kingdoms that Assyria is now seeking to dominate? Eckart Frahm: Yeah, the big difference really is that now in the 14th century, you suddenly actually do have a king, and I would say, of Assyria, because this is now actually becoming a territorial state. But first and foremost, there is now a king. There’s an individual who bears that title, which in Assyrian, Babylonian as well is Shahu. And the first for whom this title is attested is a king by the name of Ashur-uballit, who was probably instrumental in the transformation Assyria undergoes during this time. Unfortunate…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    A Sick Joke Dec 06, 2023
    Show notes

    Comedy writer Graham Linehan joins host Helen Dale to talk about cancel culture, comedy, and his new book Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy. Brian Smith: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. This podcast is a production of the online journal, Law & Liberty, and hosted by our staff. Please visit us at lawliberty.org, and thank you for listening. Helen Dale: My name is Helen Dale, and I’m Senior Writer at Law & Liberty. With me today is Graham Linehan. Graham is the writer and creator of multiple beloved British sitcoms, most famously Father Ted and The IT Crowd. With so many star-studded successes to his name and multiple BAFTAs—including a coveted lifetime achievement award—one would assume his place in the nation’s comedy firmament would be assured. Well, it was—until it wasn’t. Graham Linehan was one of the first prominent people in the UK to raise concerns about gender identity ideology (in 2018). He did so using the only tool available to him at the time, a Twitter account with 900,000 followers. Over the next five years, Graham’s career was disassembled. Not only was he abandoned in his hour of need by people he’d worked with for decades and known for longer, but current and future projects were also cancelled, including a completed West End musical based on Father Ted. Given his literary gifts, he’s fought back with a book, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy, released last month in the UK and coming to US shores soon. Tough Crowd is both a wise and amusing guide to writing funny things for television and an account of the madness that has overrun the arts and universities throughout the developed world in the last two decades. Thank you for joining us, Graham. Graham Linehan: Thank you for asking me. Helen Dale: You were—until a Comedy Unleashed show featuring you at this year’s Edinburgh Fringe was also cancelled—probably the most cancelled major figure in the UK. All the 2023 Fringe did was make your cancellation into a national scandal. You talk about the wider cancellation in Tough Crowd, but for obvious reasons, you don’t discuss what happened at this year’s Fringe. What’s it like to be cancelled on this scale? Graham Linehan: Well, it’s a destabilising thing for a comedy writer because when you’re a comedy writer, you want to be an observer of human frailty and confusion and all the other comically negative things about humanity. And so when you’re in my position, I’m now no longer outside things looking in. I am at the centre of a story. I am a figure who is incredibly divisive and scandal-ridden, and it makes even thinking about comedy somewhat difficult. I mean, in terms of coming up with a new idea or a new show—for the last five years, six years, I’ve been basically firefighting trying to protect my reputation, trying to rebuild it—and you can’t really write comedy when you’re in that kind of state. You’re in a kind of constant fight or flight mode. So yeah, it’s a very destabilising and upsetting place to be, but I just have to live with it now. Helen Dale: Has there been any sense since the book came out…It’s only been out for a few weeks now, three weeks now. Has there been any sense of… Are more people starting to talk to you now, apart from the sort of obvious media and publicity around Tough Crowd being released? Graham Linehan: Well, it’s an interesting thing because when you bring out a book—and this was actually part of my plan—I did think of it as a two-stage plan. The first stage was the book, but also the interviews that followed it because there were lots of things I couldn’t put in the book because they didn’t fit thematically to each chapter or it was simply too much information. And I thought I would use the interviews to fill in the rest of it for people. But it’s an interesting thing. I get two types of interviews. The first is what I’m getting here, which is being interviewed by people who know the issue, who understand the points, who understand what’s happened to me. And the second is what you might call the more mainstream interviews on TV and national TV over here—in the national press—which is usually with people who sort of understand the issue, but really are just kind of reporting on my Wikipedia page rather than anything that’s actually true about me. So far, it’s been okay. Just before Edinburgh, I was ambushed on TalkTV by someone who simply did not understand the issue in the slightest and was responding to the portrait that’s been painted of me by others in our profession. But yesterday I had an interesting one. I appeared on Times Radio, and even though the interviewer was taking the usual tack—which is making me apologise for either things that I didn’t do or things that have been misreported—and for once, he actually gave me a chance to respond. So, I was able to put the points as clearly as I could, and I’m hoping that will just go on. Helen Dale: Well, that’s something at least. I should just note here that some of the questions in this show were provided by subscribers to Liberty Law Talk and to my Substack. I did this last time, in my previous podcast, and it was very successful—that podcast was with Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater. And so I’ve decided to do it again. Subscriber questions are of course mixed in with my questions, and you don’t necessarily know which ones are which. However, this question is from a subscriber. Do you think most other comedians in the industry who didn’t support you are scared to speak up, or do you think they’re true believers? Graham Linehan: It’s a very good question. It’s really hard to know. What I find extraordinary is that even people I was extremely close to don’t seem to understand the issue. I heard recently that Adam Buxton—who was a very close friend of mine when I lived in Norwich, and our families hung out with each other—and you would think someone so close would make a special effort to find out exactly what the issues were and to approach them in a serious way. But no, he’s platforming people who engaged in harassment against me, and he’s allowing people on this show to smear figures like Posie Parker. So I think there’s… What you might call it is a kind of protective ignorance. It’s like, I saw an interesting thing today: two people interviewed who were at a Hamas march, and were kind of pretending they didn’t know about the October 7th attacks. And I think it’s a similar thing going on here. They don’t know about this stuff, but they deliberately don’t know about it because knowing about it to the extent that they would have to do what I do and protest about it means they might lose their careers. So it’s a kind of a faux ignorance, if that makes sense. Helen Dale: It’s a very interesting take on the idea of pluralistic ignorance or preference falsification. It’s like people are participating in those willingly. Graham Linehan: Yes, I’ve never heard those terms, but I will start using them because they sound like exactly what I’m talking about. Helen Dale: Preference falsification is when everybody says that they believe a thing, but the majority of people saying it don’t actually believe it, and then there are revealed preferences—where what they actually believe tends to be shown at the ballot box. So, they vote in a different way from what they say. Graham Linehan: Yes, that’s one thing I’ve been doing for the last five or six years is trying to find a way that people can safely make their complaints or their worries known. But it’s very difficult in this world where we’re always on a… I mean, that was one of the other reasons why the theme of audiences goes through my book. I think one of the things we did that we didn’t realise we were doing was, we decided to step on a stage. The internet is a stage—and we all decided without really knowing what we were deciding to do—to play out our lives to a public-facing audience. Once these movements started to make themselves known—the gender identity movement is obviously the one I’m fighting—but there are many others out there. Everyone realised, I think simultaneously, that it’s a little bit difficult to be a political person if you’re on a stage. You can suddenly have tomatoes or rotten fruit thrown at you. And I think it’s made, and this sort of goes back to the earlier question, I think it’s made many people very, very shy. Shy in a way that’s actually harmful, shy in a way that means that they can… One of the things I put in the book is that I always thought the Holocaust, another Holocaust, would be impossible in a connected world because you wouldn’t be able to build the concentration camps, you wouldn’t be able to commit atrocities because too many eyes were on you. And instead of that, what we have is a situation where the people committing the atrocities are filming it themselves. It’s like I heard an interesting thing about CCTV cameras in crime-ridden areas. Apparently, they had a very good short-term effect. The cameras would go up, and the crime would just disappear. But then, after a few weeks, when everyone got used to them, these places would simply resume their old kind of character. And it’s just so strange. I just think that the effect of everybody having a camera, everybody being able to spy on everyone else, has been not to suppress bad behaviour, but to amplify it. And my rosy view of what the internet would bring was completely decimated. Helen Dale: A lot of Tough Crowd is devoted to Twitter, or TwitterX as it appears to be now, and how it ensnared you. And I found it a fascinating part of the book I must say. I’ve since heard you talk about—and you’ve touched on it here—how social media produces a type of digital panopticon. I’d be grateful if you could outline some of your thinking on this here. What has this done to us and how is it playing out? Graham Linehan: Well, I think the main thing it’s done is it has turned us all into Stasi operatives. I’ve been reading a lot about the Stasi recently, and I believe it was something like one in four or one in five people in East Germany were Stasi members. So that kind of speaks to a… What’s the word? People seem to be predisposed to spying on neighbours. People seem to be predisposed to being an informer, being an operative, being a kind of member of the religious police, you might say. Unfortunately, Twitter has just allowed us all to take this role to report on our neighbours and friends for thinking the wrong thing, saying the wrong thing, and making the wrong joke. It’s one reason why I think comedy is in a really bad place at the moment. There’s a famous quote by a comedian over here who said, “the joke that will destroy my life is already out there.” And what that means is that, let’s say this comedian enters into a contentious debate. It can be about anything, not even as contentious as Israel, Palestine, or feminism. It could be about football. Well, the enemies of that person will be able to simply do a search through that person’s timeline to find a tweet that uses a forbidden word or says a forbidden thing. And again, this forbidden thing might not have been forbidden at the time the person wrote it. It’s just forbidden now. And so what you have, again, sorry to use all these references, but there’s a quote I think by Cardinal Richelieu who said something along the lines of, “give me three letters by any man and I will find enough to condemn him.” Which means that it’s the interpretation that’s the killer. What you say is one thing, but the interpretation applied to it can be used to destroy you at any time. And unfortunately, comedians are particularly susceptible to this because their whole existence, their job depends on them being able to walk a very fine line between what’s acceptable to say and what’s not acceptable to say. So again, if there’s an enemy of this particular comedian out there, he has the power now to destroy that man’s or woman’s life. So that’s what I mean by panopticon. Helen Dale: What do you think will happen to British comedy in the future, near or far? Do you see any future where there is diversity of thought allowed in the wider industry? Graham Linehan: I think so because I think in the end, people will follow the money. I believe that Disney in the States, it’s now very easy to… There are no queues, there are no long queues at Disney. That might’ve changed recently, but this was the last time I checked at Disney World because people are so disgusted by the propaganda that Disney is pumping out. And you can see as well the popularity of shows like South Park in their recent attacks on Kathleen Kennedy that have just really struck a chord. I think Cartman has the line—which he plays Kathleen Kennedy in it—and he says the line, “Put a chick in it and make it lame.” And it’s a very funny way of looking at what’s going on. There’s this concentration on things that do not make for good stories, forced diversity, again—the lack of diversity of thought. These things don’t resonate with audiences who are themselves diverse. When you get a diverse audience, they’re not looking to see diversity. They’re looking to see things that connect them to a shared humanity. And these stories have been told down through the years for centuries. And yeah, sure, some of them are out of date and some of them have creaky opinions and so on. But replacing those creaky opinions with modern-day creaky opinions, it’s no substitute. So I think that eventually people will… I think what you’ll find is that companies like Netflix, companies like Disney, they will suddenly get sick of losing money and their shareholders will take over. And I think at that time, you’ll find people actually actively seeking out comedy that is challenging and confrontational and exciting. Helen Dale: I’ve heard you comment to the effect that writing Tough Crowd made you feel like a comedian again. Do you have any comedy work or more creative work in the pipeline? And if so, how can we support those projects beyond buying the book of course? Graham Linehan: Ooh, that’s a good question. I think, no, you know what? I think buying the book is really the only thing I need at the moment, because what I need to do, what I really need is to feel a sense of safety in terms of my financial situation. It’s really hard to write comedy when you’re worried about where the money is coming from. So if the book kind of takes off, and if people realise that it’s not just me whining about being cancelled, there’s a lot of stuff in there about how to write comedy and comic observations in themselves. If that does well, then once I feel that the rubber hits the road on the sales, I’ll be able to just start thinking about the next project. But at the moment, my whole existence is spent trying to overcome the devices that are in place to stop the book from selling. For instance, WHSmith isn’t stocking it at the moment, which is the big retailer over here for the… Helen Dale: Are you in Waterstones? Graham Linehan: We are in Waterstones, and with Waterstones, it’s a shop-by-shop basis. From what I’ve been told, every shop is the subject of a power struggle with the kind of people who would be offended by the book and the kind of people who just love books and want to sell them. So it’s up to individual shops, whether they hide it in the stockroom or put it out on display. But yeah, it’s a tough one. But I have- Helen Dale: Have WHSmith even told you why they’re not stocking it? Graham Linehan: They’re even refusing to answer emails. Helen Dale: Oh, wonderful. Graham Linehan: Yeah. But we were expecting things like that. And I think also they would be very clever just to try and not have any controversy about it and keep it quietly hidden because these types of things, when they try and suppress a book, it’s a bit like, I don’t know if you remember the episode, but it was an episode of Father Ted where Ted and Dougal protested outside of a cinema, and all they did was drove…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The Architecture of the Republic Nov 20, 2023
    Show notes

    Justin Shubow joins host Rachel Lu to talk about the importance of beautiful government buildings and the possibility of a classical revival. Brian Smith: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. This podcast is a production of the online journal, Law & Liberty, and hosted by our staff. Please visit us at lawliberty.org and thank you for listening. Rachel Lu: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. Thanks for joining us today. I’m Rachel Lu, Associate Editor at Law & Liberty, and here with me today, I have Justin Shubow. He’s the President of the National Civic Art Society, a non-profit organization in Washington, DC that promotes the classical and humanistic tradition in public art and architecture. Welcome to the show, Justin. Justin Shubow: Thanks for having me. Rachel Lu: So we’re going to be talking today about the Beautifying Federal Civil Architecture Act, but before we get into the politics, I just thought I’d open with this question. I know you’ve dedicated tremendous energy to improving public buildings. If you were given the opportunity to wipe one public building or monument off the map and redesign it completely, what would you do with that opportunity? Justin Shubow: Well, I think one of the worst buildings that I would eliminate is the Department of Housing and Urban Development Headquarters in Washington, DC. It’s a massive, ugly, brutalist building designed by a famous architect, Marcel Breuer, and it’s just incredibly oppressive. Two different HUD Secretaries, one Democrat, one Republican, have said the building is like ten floors of basement. And a third HUD Secretary, also a Democrat, Julian Castro, seconded those Secretaries and also said that the building looked like something from the Soviet Union. So here we have both Democrats and Republicans agreeing that this building is terrible, and it also does damage to an area of Washington, DC that’s very important. So, the building is located in the southwest quadrant near the National Mall. It could be a beautiful classical building that harmonizes with the best of our tradition in Washington, but it represents and embodies the federal government at its worst as a faceless bureaucracy. Rachel Lu: Yeah, and what would you do with that potential? What could be in that space? Justin Shubow: Well, I think an example of what a noble building could be is the buildings in the Federal Triangle, buildings like the FTC headquarters. These were classical buildings inspired by ancient Roman designs that were constructed in the 1920s and 30s. The Head of the Treasury Department specifically said that these buildings should be classical. The buildings helped to complete Washington, DC as a classical city as it was originally intended by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Rachel Lu: Right. And that was the norm for a long time in Washington, DC, right? To build buildings in that style. Justin Shubow: Well, the founders consciously decided that the core buildings of government would be classical. They wished to harken back to Democratic Rome, Republican Rome, and Democratic Athens, and they saw the classical tradition as time-honored and timeless. They started a tradition that continued in America for about 150 years—and, in fact, in 1901, the federal government made Classicism official, talking about its greatness and how respected it is by people over the years. Rachel Lu: Right. So, I want us to talk more later about why this changed if we have a chance, but let’s get first to this issue of the Beautifying Federal Civil Architecture Act. Because this is a bill that’s presently in front of Congress or potentially being debated by Congress. Can you tell us about what that is, what the status of it is, and so forth? Justin Shubow: Sure. Just one correction. It’s the beautiful Civic Architecture Act, not Civil. Rachel Lu: Okay. Sorry. Justin Shubow: As a bit of background, the federal government, starting in the 1950s up until very recently, has been building almost entirely modernist federal buildings. And President Trump issued an executive order that revolutionized federal architecture by reorienting it from ugly modernism to beautiful, classical, and traditional design. The order said that, and it applied to federal buildings costing $50 million or more, it said that the building should uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit in noble the United States, command respect from the general public, be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect regional architectural heritage. And it specifically said for Washington, DC that classicism should be the default style for federal public buildings. The executive order didn’t ban modernism, but it did make it much more difficult to build brutalist and deconstructivist designs. Unfortunately, President Biden in his second month of office, rescinded the order without giving any explanation. But more recently, as you said, there now is legislation pending in Congress. In the Senate, the lead sponsor is Marco Rubio. In the House, the lead sponsor is Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, who’s a rising star and is almost definitely going to be a Senator from Indiana in two years. This legislation would essentially codify that executive order with some changes, but one important thing that it would do is it would require that there be substantial public input when decisions are being made for designs for federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. Rachel Lu: Right. So, Biden canceled that without explaining what was going on with that really, and this is an attempt to revivify that effort. Justin Shubow: Correct. This legislation proves that this issue is now on the national radar. This is not just about President Trump. This has much broader support from well-respected Members of Congress. This is an issue that’s not going away. Rachel Lu: Right. So, as I understand it, one of the arguments in favor of this, there are many, but one is just that people in general prefer classical architecture. It’s more beautiful. They’d rather walk by it and look at it in their cities. And there’s, I think, a lot of survey evidence that this is the case, right? That people prefer this. So partly for that reason, you want to give the public more opportunities to have input into the buildings that are being built in the Capitol and elsewhere, the public buildings that they’re paying for and that they’re living with, and they’re looking at. How is that going to work? How would that look? What kind of optimal structure would you want there to be for the public to give input into public buildings? Justin Shubow: Well, first, I would say that my organization in 2020 did do a survey run by the Harris Poll, a highly respected, non-partisan polling company. We polled 2,000 Americans to see their preferences for the design of federal buildings and US courthouses. And what we did was pair images, very carefully selected to show actually existing federal buildings similar in shape, size, color, and so on, making sure the sky was the same. And we just simply ask the participants, “Which of these two buildings would you prefer for a federal building or a U.S. courthouse?” The results of the survey were overwhelming. 72% of the people surveyed preferred the traditional design, and there were widespread majorities across all demographic groups: race, gender, socioeconomic, political party affiliation, you name it. Regarding political party affiliation, tradition was preferred by 70% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans. So this survey proved what everyone really knows, which is that ordinary people prefer classical and traditional design for these kinds of buildings. And you ask, “How could we ensure that the public has a say?” Well, I could imagine that when a building is going to be built in a particular locale, like, say, there’s going to be a new federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which in fact is the case, there is going to be one, that you could pick lay people from that region and give them samples of the kinds of buildings that they might want. So in other words, you might provide an example of a classical building, a brutalist building, a deconstructivist building or a Romanesque building and so on, and say, “Which of these styles would you prefer for the new courthouse?” These lay people could be surveyed, and those survey results would influence the design that the architects actually create. Rachel Lu: I see. Yeah. So explain this—why is it, do you think, that people prefer traditional styles? Justin Shubow: Well, I think one major reason is that they are inherently beautiful. There are certain buildings and kinds of buildings that are greatly admired by not just Americans but people around the world. I think when people look at the U.S. Capitol, they see an inspiring, iconic building representing American democracy. And by contrast, when people see a brutalist building, they tend to see it as oppressive, foreboding, and so on. There is widespread agreement across cultures about what makes for a beautiful building. Symmetry can matter—having a certain degree of ornament and complexity matters. So yeah, those are some of the reasons why people might like it. At the same time, Americans do associate this design with our federal government. Classical architecture is widely seen as the embodiment of our democracy. So there’s this association in the minds of Americans about what makes for building that speaks to who we are and who we wish to be. Rachel Lu: Yes. That’s interesting. What do you think that connection is? What are the precursors to that architectural style, and why does it seem particularly fitting for us that our federal buildings would be in that style? Justin Shubow: As I said, the founders saw classical architecture as returning to the roots of democracy in Rome and Greece. So it made sense that they chose that architecture instead of, say, gothic or something else for the buildings of government. It’s interesting—in the 19th century, when the British Parliament was deciding what their new parliament building was going to look like, they had a competition, and the competition required that the building be either Gothic or what they called Elizabethan. There was opposition to having a classical parliament because people said that style was too Republican, meaning it was too anti-monarchical. And so I think there is this long association in America tying classical architecture to democracy. And you look at certain structures like the U.S. Supreme Court, which is modeled on temple architecture with the steps leading up with the columns with the pediment. This is a classic American building type, the courthouse that everyone recognizes. It’s what you see on TV and in movies. And when people see that, I think they see a temple of justice. There’s something about the temple form that resonates. Rachel Lu: Yeah, and it’s interesting how architecture has a particular capacity to shape people’s sensibilities because we do walk by buildings every day, right? They’re part of our lives in a particular way. So, it does have that particular significance. Now, this might be a good moment to ask, why are people so opposed to this? I’m not really enough in this field to understand it. When you walk by these awful buildings that look like Borg cubes or these kinds of things, it’s just hard to understand. Why does someone choose to build a building like that? Justin Shubow: Well, the opposition to the executive order and the legislation really only comes from a small sliver of society. It’s from the architectural establishment, which is almost entirely modernist in orientation. And certain cultural elites, like, say, the New York Times editorial page. When Trump’s executive order was pending, the New York Times published an editorial titled “What’s So Great about Fake Roman Temples?” And it said, “Well, maybe the founders needed to create a new kind of architecture, but we no longer need to wear borrowed clothes.” The New York Times was calling for something that suits us today. The implication being that in some important ways, we are different from the people in the past, classical architecture doesn’t suit the spirit of the times. Underlying a lot of this modernist ideology is this idea that there’s progress in history and we can’t build in historic styles since there is this evolution. I would say that the New York Times, by implication, was saying that the U.S. Supreme Court building and the Jefferson Memorial were also fake Roman temples when they were constructed because these are not 2,000-year-old buildings. But as I was saying, the architectural establishment represented by the American Institute of Architects, which is the main trade organization, they’re vehemently opposed to this policy because it’s a major threat to their hegemony. They have been the determiners of what our federal architecture should look like, and they do not want that power taken away from them. Most of them do not work in a classical, traditional style. And there’s a lot of money at stake here also. It’s important to understand that the federal government is the largest patron of art and architecture in the country, and they want to continue building in various modernist styles. Rachel Lu: That is helpful. So when an architect is designing a building that someone who is really opposed to the kind of criteria that you would want them to use, is the thought something like, “I want to build something original. I just don’t want to just copy old styles that other people did. I want to come up with something that puts me and my cohort of architects on the map,” or something like that? Is that the driving motivation behind that? Justin Shubow: Yeah, there are certain modernist architects who think of themselves as creative geniuses with emphasis on innovation and “creativity.” They don’t believe that emulating traditional architecture is something that should be done. A lot of them think that they just know better than ordinary people. Even if their designs are not appreciated by the public, they think that they are achieving the highest goals of architecture. And maybe someday, the public will be educated and come around to liking their designs. But of course, say Brutalism has been around for 60 years now, and it’s still widely disliked, and I don’t think it ever will be liked. There is something about architecture schools that brainwash or deform architects’ minds. There is a study that the longer architects have been in school, the more their preferences diverge from that of laypeople. There was a separate study that found that not only do architects evaluate buildings in a different way from the public, but they can’t even predict how lay people will respond to their buildings. That’s how differently they think from lay people. And it’s important to understand that a building is not like a painting on a wall or a piece of music. You can’t avoid it. Architecture is forced upon us, and so therefore it’s the most political of the arts, small p political. And when you get to public buildings, it’s explicitly political since these buildings are speaking to who we are and who we wish to be. Rachel Lu: So, a lot about the politicization of architecture, right? Because you were once the Chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Is that correct? But were removed from that position by President Biden. Did I get that accurate? Justin Shubow: Yes. So, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is an independent federal agency established in 1910. It is the Aesthetic Review Board for Washington DC, reviewing the design of monuments, memorials, public buildings and so on. It has a great deal of influence on what Washington looks like. President Trump, and I should say in that Commission has been almost entirely modernist since, say, World War II. It has seven members. President Trump appointed me to that Commission. All Commissioners are appoi…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 33 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Rationally Speaking Podcast

    1

    Rationally Speaking Podcast Natural Science
    Another Round

    2

    Another Round Arts
    Stuff Mom Never Told You

    3

    Stuff Mom Never Told You Philosophy
    In The Rabbit Hole

    4

    In The Rabbit Hole Philosophy
    The Gray Area with Sean Illing

    5

    The Gray Area with Sean Illing Education
    The Art of Manliness

    6

    The Art of Manliness Education
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights