Related articles

• Coffee & Markets: Mark Steyn on After America (collectedmiscellany.com)

But in his biography of founding father James Madison, Richard Brookhiser argues that politics is the working out of our ideals; that for freedom, democracy and republican government to function in the real world requires politics and all the baggage that entails.

We pay much less attention to James Madison, Father of Politics, than we do James Madison, Father of the Constitution. That is because politics embarrasses us. Politics is the spectacle on television and YouTube, the daily perp walk on the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. Surely our founders and framers lefts us something better, more solid, more inspiring than that? They did. But they all knew - and Madison understood better than any of them – that ideals come to life in dozens of political transactions every day. Some of these transactions aren’t pretty. You can understand this and try to work with this knowledge, or you can look away. But ignoring politics will not make it stop. It will simply go on without you – and sooner or later will happen to you.

Madison is one of, if not the, smartest of the founders but he lacked the stature of Washington, or the eloquence of a Thomas Jefferson or a Patrick Henry, and so his intelligence is sometimes overlooked. Madison may not have been an eloquent speaker – he often spoke so quietly that the audience couldn’t hear him – or writer but he learned to master many of the important skills necessary to move public opinion, pass legislation and build coalitions.

In fact, he developed a conception of political action that modern readers will recognize.  At a time when most people understood the role of the public as cyclical (citizens vote, let their leaders lead and then either vote them out or return them to power based on the results) Madison began to develop a view of public opinion as a necessary part of leadership and governing.

Madison also realized that in order to succeed long-term, he needed another tool: a political party. And so with the help of Thomas Jefferson he built the Republican Party – which rather confusingly eventually changed its name and became today’s Democratic Party. Where parties, often known as factions, were once looked down upon Madison played a big role in making them a standard part of elections and governance.

And in many ways Madison’s story is the story of how that party triumphed while the party of Washington and Hamilton faded away. This led to the Virginia Dynasty; two terms each for Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. And it ended the long friendship and partnership between Madison and George Washington.

Madison also sought to use public opinion as part of coalition building and governing; while seeking to mold that opinion to his ends. This included journalism, public speaking, lobbying and more – in other words what we call politics.

As a result, Brookhiser gives a tour of the development of American politics from the battles over the Constitution to the War of 1812 and the battles that prefigured the Civil War.  This included the nature of federal power versus state’s rights; trade and economic development; international relations and military strategy; and a number of important constitutional questions.

Madison played a central role in every major debate of this period and served in government at every level; from state and local bodies and conventions to Congress, the cabinet and eventually the presidency.  His life is a great window into this time period and the issues, ideas and personalities involved.

And this is where Brookhiser shines. His writing is crisp and clear.  He is not afraid to make judgments and offer assessments. He doesn’t feel the need to drown the reader in detail, but rather offers an overview and quick sketches of important events and characters.

The story is full of one line descriptions and aphorisms; of memorable opinion and useful insights.

On John Adams:

If Adams had had to make a living as a journalist, he would have starved; he hid diamonds of psychological insight in dunghills of pedantry.

On John Randolph of Roanoke:

All his life, his voice never broke and he never used a razor. He kept the world in awe with his quick tongue and quicker temper. In his twenties and thirties, he was not as crazy as he would later become, after alcohol, opium, and disappointment had done their work. But he was always willful and domineering.

On Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson had a gift of seeing views and making leaps. He was a prophet; he was also a bluejay, snatching at every shiny idea that caught his eye. He expressed his thoughts in crystal-clear words; the words in turn brightened the thoughts.

On Madison’s relationship with Jefferson:

Madison was like a box in which Jefferson could deposit his savvy, on occasions when it conflicted with his other impulses or emotions. But Jefferson always remembered how to find it again.

Brookhiser writes popular history as it should be: learned and insightful but not exhausting; with sharp writing not afraid to offer an opinion but not polemical for the sake of scoring points; with prose that is clear and a joy to read.

If you are interested in the founders and framers, the politics of the immediate post constitution era, or just good and engaging history you should check out Richard Brookhiser’s books.

And this biography of James Madison has much to teach us today as we engage in politics:

Politics can be low, sometimes sordid. Much of that has to be endured, because that is the way men are. “If men were angels,” as Madison wrote, “no government would be necessary.”  But some of the shortcomings of politics may be capable of improvement. So say why and do better.  As Madison also wrote, “The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.” Both of those remarks were addressed to government, but they also apply to politics.

Madison at his best, and worst, belongs not just to his family, but to every citizen. We have been working together for a long time.

Worth thinking about this primary season and heading into 2012.

Related articles

• Is James Madison an under-appreciated founding father? (collectedmiscellany.com)

For this week’s Coffee & Markets podcast Pejman Yousefzadeh and I spoke with Michael Bowen author of The Roots of Modern Conservatism: Dewey, Taft, and the Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party.

We discussed how the split between Thomas Dewey and Robert Taft led to the transformation of the Republican party as a party of conservatives, which began with Barry Goldwater’s nomination in 1964.

Listen below.

American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us
by Robert D. Putnam, David E. Campbell
688 pages
October 2010
Simon & Schuster

I found this to be a fascinating and informative look at religious life in America. If you are a stats/data geek this is heaven – charts galore – but they have weaved the data into a compelling narrative. And church vignette chapters break it up and provide some more personalized examples.

There are some interpretations that are arguable, and the authors pretty clearly come from a liberal perspective, but it is still a remarkably interesting read for anyone interested in the history of religion and the debates over politics and the culture wars.

Here is the core narrative or argument of the book:

America has experienced three seismic shocks, say Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In the 1960s, religious observance plummeted. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, a conservative reaction produced the rise of evangelicalism and the Religious Right. Since the 1990s, however, young people, turned off by that linkage between faith and conservative politics, have abandoned organized religion. The result has been a growing polarization—the ranks of religious conservatives and secular liberals have swelled, leaving a dwindling group of religious moderates in between. At the same time, personal interfaith ties are strengthening. Interfaith marriage has increased while religious identities have become more fluid. Putnam and Campbell show how this denser web of personal ties brings surprising interfaith tolerance, notwithstanding the so-called culture wars.

I know there is a lot of disagreement about the components of this argument or story arc (both the conclusions and the data) but I don’t have the depth of knowledge needed to offer much of a conclusion either way.

Here is an example from the Books & Culture review by James L. Guth and Lyman A. Kellstedt:

This dovetails with a more pervasive concern: Putnam and Campbell’s persistent dismissal of the content of religious faith. Although their own survey includes a solid battery of belief items, the authors repeatedly deny that what people believe has any major relevance to social or political values, whether partisanship, charitable activities, or civic engagement. We are unconvinced. An old adage among students of religion and politics is that “behavior begets behavior, and belief begets belief.” Religious practices like church attendance should foster voting or working in campaigns, while religious beliefs should influence choices on issues, parties, and candidates. Thus, findings in American Grace that churchgoers excel in civic participation are not surprising. But reliance on religiosity may be misleading when explaining political choices. True, abortion and gay rights opinions may be structured by religiosity more strongly than other issues, but the authors ignore the possibility that they might be influenced even more by religious beliefs.

What is so helpful about the book is that you don’t have to agree with the authors to enjoy and learn from it. They present the data and the argument and you can engage it at whatever detail is appropriate for you – get into the data or just read it absorbing as much as you can along the way.

With this in mind, I wholeheartedly echo the above review’s conclusion:

These caveats should not deter anyone interested in American religion from reading this challenging volume. For scholars hoping to fathom the connections between religion and public life, for clergy wanting to understand better the people in the pews (and those not there), and for grass-roots believers desiring a broader picture of faith in America, this volume is required reading.

This weeks Coffee & Markets podcast finds Pejman Yousefzadeh and myself joined by Mark Steyn, author of After America.  We discuss whether a dystopian future is really upon us (and why in America this future might be particularly ugly), what needs to be done to prevent this future and more.

Listen here.

Related articles

• ED DRISCOLL INTERVIEWS MARK STEYN about Steyn’s new book, After America, which picked a good week to… (pajamasmedia.com)
• Hugh Hewitt: Talking With Mark Steyn About “After America” (hughhewitt.com)

From the Publisher

What’s the central characteristic of socialism? That’s easy—it’s failure.

From North Korea to the American public education system, from Venezuelan oil companies to ObamaCare, the reports of socialism’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. Although the Soviet Union collapsed in ignominy, the central planning impulse that guided it endures in countless industries and government policies throughout the world. As Kevin Williamson explains in this myth–busting book, socialism never works because it can’t work. It assumes the authorities have all–knowing planning abilities that human beings don’t possess—and can’t possess. This central flaw has resulted in crushing poverty, devastating famine, and even mass murder. And yet the socialist “dream” is spreading—including here in America.

Related articles

• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism (powerlineblog.com)

From the Publisher

Are Liberals Annoying the Heck Out of You?

Well now you can fight back—every single day—with James Delingpole’s handy new guide of jokes, facts, arguments, and even outrageous rumors to spread that will have your liberal acquaintances recoiling in horror—and maybe even just possibly reconsidering their opinions. Need something to brighten your day and darken a liberal’s? Look no further. This is the book for you!

So I was intrigued when I saw that an author who I enjoy, Jeremy Lott, had come out with a short bio of WFB as part of the Christian Encounters series at Thomas Nelson.

This was another book I read back in the summer but didn’t get a chance to review until now. I thought it would be useful to bring back the Ten Questions format and ask Jeremy to answer a few questions.

He graciously agree and the Q&A is below (my questions in bold)

1. How does viewing WFB through the lens of “prophet” help us understand him better?

It helps us to see how he saw himself, at least in part. I quote from a letter that William F. Buckley wrote to Ronald Reagan recounting Buckley’s appearance on the Tonight Show. WFB told Johnny Carson “that vaticide was the act of killing a prophet, and that if he wanted to go down as guilty of that crime, all he had to do was kill me.”

Now, this was a witticism, so we shouldn’t place too much weight on it, but neither should we ignore it. I argue that it was along the lines of what Ben Stiller’s villain White Goodman said several times in the movie Dodgeball. You remember? “I’m kidding, but not really.”
2. This is a Christian Encounters series, how did WFB’s faith impact and inspire his politics?

His politics grew out of his faith and his upbringing, though the faith sometimes had to serve as a check on the upbringing. It moved him on segregation, anti-Semitism, and mutually assured destruction (the last very late in life), for instance.

3. Did Buckley’s anti-communism during the Cold War hide, to a degree, his more libertarian side?

To a degree, it did. When you are concentrating on using one national security apparatus to grind down another, more threatening one, you are going to appear less libertarian.

But there’s also the fact that his libertarian side emerged from a political theory, dubbed “fusionism,” that was really developed in the 1960s. Fusionism said virtue that is coerced is not virtue, and so government should get out of the virtue-promotion business. This eventually inspired to his call to end the war on drugs, but it took awhile.

4. How is the National Review of today different from the magazine WFB created and ran for so many years?

It’s more reliably Republican. In 1956 and 1960, NR declined to endorse the GOP nominee, and Buckley regularly criticized Eisenhower and Nixon. That started changing in 1968 when the magazine threw its weight behind the Nixon-Agnew ticket. In 2008, it endorsed Mitt Romney in the primaries and John McCain in the general.

5. How important was Firing Line to making WFB a household name? How do you think the show impacted both conservatives in the media and political media in general?

It put him in people’s living rooms once a week and allowed him to mix it up with most of the great politicians and cultural figures of the time. Many conservatives, including current NR editor Rich Lowry, were inspired by this. It also proved that a regular forum for ideas on television could find a dedicated audience.

6. How significant (both short and long term) was the damage from the ill fated NR Civil Rights editorial? The almost immediate reversal seems to be forgotten.

I was shocked to learn that National Review’s stance in favor of barring blacks from the ballot lasted for only one issue. In the very next issue, NR reversed itself. And yet this is often cited as some long-standing policy of the magazine. Very odd.

It did a lot of damage, obviously. It helped defenders of the Civil Rights Act to brand all of its critics as racists. The professional anti-racists really haven’t changed their script since.

7. What was the most surprising thing you came across or learned researching this book? Was there anything that struck you as new and/or under-reported?

How about the fact that Buckley didn’t really want to found National Review? He tried to take over The Freeman, Human Events, and even the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal before he finally threw in the towel and founded NR.

8. What do you see as WFB’s legacy in terms of the conservative movement?

The fact that there is a conservative movement.

9. Is “fusionism” still possible?

I think its central insight is still valid, though it only goes so far. It doesn’t help us settle some contentious issues like abortion. Practically, it will always be applicable because any conservative coalition in this country is going to be a mix of conservatives and libertarians. They’ll have to find some way to get along.

10. Ayn Rand, and her books, have made something of a comeback. WFB tried to write Objectivism out of the conservative movement. Did he succeed?

We should distinguish between Rand-as-entertainment and Objectivism. She wanted people to swallow the philosophy and the novels as a single shot but that’s not how it usually works, in my experience. Modern Rand fans prefer cocktails. One of her biggest boosters, Glenn Beck, mixes his Atlas Shruggery with Mormonism. That should have Rand turning over in her atheist grave.

Related articles

• Reason.tv: Author Jeremy Lott on William F. Buckley Jr.’s Faith and Politics (reason.com)
• William F. Buckley (Christian Encounters) by Jeremy Lott (collectedmiscellany.com)
• Breaking the Buckley Rule | Jeremy Lott (guardian.co.uk)