Ask Me Anything—Jan. '23
I answer questions about the Electoral College, right-wing Catholics, the angertainment industry, and ... David Bowie
I received more questions than I could answer this time, and also a few that overlapped with questions that arrived earlier in the week. If I didn’t get to your question this time, please resubmit it the next time I run this feature, in about a month, making a point of noting it’s a resubmission. I’ll be sure to get to yours then.
Oh, and no paywall today!
DonM
What’s your take on Jamie Raskin’s comment that the electoral college is a threat to democracy?
Criticisms of the Electoral College typically take one of two forms. Some say the EC is bad because it’s unrepresentative, giving low-population-density states equal or proportionately greater say in choosing the president than densely populated states. (California has 55 EC votes for 39 million people while Wyoming has 3 EC votes for 578,000. That’s one EC vote per 709,000 people in California and one EC vote per 193,000 people in Wyoming.) This has always been a feature (or bug) of the EC, but it’s become more fraught in recent years as high-density states have become firmly blue and low-density ones have become firmly red. The result is an institution that seems to systematically advantage Republicans at the expense of Democrats.
The second criticism of the EC became more common in the wake of Donald Trump’s attempted self-coup on January 6, 2021. One way in which Trump attempted to keep himself in power despite losing the 2020 election was to get Republican-controlled legislatures in states he narrowly lost to appoint electors who supported Trump despite Biden winning the state’s popular vote. Trump also tried to get Vice President Mike Pence to reject electors from states that refused to make such moves. The omnibus bill that passed Congress shortly before the holidays included reforms to the Electoral Count Act designed to fortify the system against these sorts of attempted manipulations.
It sounds to me like Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin is mostly complaining about the latter problem, indicating that there remain any number of ways in which a future president could interfere with counting electoral votes, despite reforms to the ECA. But in making his case for electing presidents by popular vote instead, Raskin’s comments also veer into talk of the EC’s unrepresentative character. So frankly, I’m unsure what to make of his comments.
My own view is that the EC is a ridiculous institution, but it’s in the U.S. Constitution, which means it can only be eliminated by an amendment that at the moment has no chance of passing (because one party in our very closely divided country benefits from the current arrangement). That might leave workarounds like moves by individual states to assign electors according to the national-vote winner. If enough states did that, it would effectively neuter the EC. I personally favor a different reform: treating “electors” as points automatically allocated within states in accordance with the popular vote winner rather than slots for actual human beings to occupy. This would leave the EC’s low-population-density-enhancing tendency intact while eliminating the risk of state legislatures or so-called “faithless electors” defying popular vote outcomes within states.
Anon
Your writings on Strauss in “Eyes on the Right” are a fantastic resource. Which of Strauss’ books do you think have had the greatest influence on the contemporary right?
Thanks. I’m glad someone enjoys the Leo Strauss posts! It’s hard to answer your question, though, because I think Strauss’ influence on the contemporary right is untrue to his mature position as I understand it. The right-wing radicals at the Claremont Institute, for example, are more properly considered acolytes of Harry Jaffa than of Strauss himself. Now, Jaffa was a student of Strauss, so there is a connection there. But most of the Claremonsters mainly quote the superficially edifying introductions to Strauss’ books rather than engage seriously with the more intricate (enigmatic and aporetic) arguments elaborated in the pages that follow. (For more on this, see my answer to a related question about Strauss in my AMA from August 2022.)
I said similar things 20 years ago about Straussians who strongly supported the Iraq War. I didn’t think they came to support that policy because of any specific thing they read in Strauss. They made a judgment call about the wisdom of invasion; I made my own and came down on the opposite side. They and I both read Strauss. Neither side could praise or blame him for these contrary acts of judgment. Politics is an uncertain business. There are no cheat sheets to be found in any book.
So I will answer a question you didn’t ask: Which of Strauss’ books are the best introduction to his thought? My first suggestion is the one everyone always names: Natural Right and History. As an alternative, I’d recommend the essay collection What Is Political Philosophy? I’m also quite fond of the opening two essays (on liberal education) in the collection Liberalism Ancient and Modern.
Mike Stroud
How similar is the thought of the British reactionary philosopher John Gray to American thinkers of the so-called "post liberal" or "national conservative" persuasion such as Adrian Vermuele and Patrick Deneen? If Gray is a brother-in-arms of the populist right, has he made anything like the impact both of those Americans have on the movement, or is he too focused on British concerns to be relevant on these shores?
I have been reading (and learning from) Gray for a long time, but I don’t think he’s especially influential these days, at least in this country. (I don’t follow UK debates closely enough to know if he’s still read and wrestled with at home.) He was quite widely read back in his Thatcherite phase, and his increasingly dark antiliberalism got some attention at first. But by now, he’s kind of repeating himself. Or so it seems to me. (A brief plug: His muscular defense of Isaiah Berlin’s pluralistic liberalism, which he undertook just before going full nihilist, is quite good and influenced my reading of Berlin in important ways.)
One reason why I doubt Gray has as much influence as Vermeule and Deneen do in this country is that the latter actually have a positive program and argue for it, whereas Gray is known by this point as a kind of misanthrope who thinks we’re all fools and quite possibly doomed as a species. That’s not a platform likely to inspire a following. Which isn’t to say it won’t gain an audience. But those readers won’t be angling to do very much with the ideas they pick up from the books beyond reaching for a stiff drink.
Nicholas Freres
Much has been written about the hard right turn of Christian evangelicalism in America. Tim Alberta of The Atlantic and David French of The Dispatch have both written insightfully about that troubling development. I'm a Catholic. I'm also politically moderate, which means that for the past six years I've voted exclusively for Democrats. How do you understand the role of Catholics in promoting, supporting, and enabling the implementation of right-wing policies, including everything from abortion policies to anti-democratic, quasi-integralist aspirations.
Big question! My first book (The Theocons) answered it as of 2005 or so. If I were writing a follow-up today, it would tell a much more complicated story. Back then, conservative Catholics provided the ideas, arguments, rhetorical appeals for the religious right, whereas evangelical Protestants were the movement’s foot soldiers. Today’s religious right is enjoying some of its greatest successes (overturning Roe v. Wade being the biggest by far) at a moment when the Republican Party, like the American electorate as a whole, is becoming ever-more secular. That has been made possible by the transformation of Christian piety (whether evangelical or Catholic) into an identity marker for conservatives. So a Republican who never goes to church might think of himself as a Christian because that’s a useful catch-all term for everyone (secular or religious) who supports the “right” side in the culture war.
That’s a confusing situation. So to answer your specific questions: The Catholic Church has been incredibly important in leading the pro-life movement over the last half century, from the grassroots on up to Supreme Court justices. But integralism? That’s a hobby for a tiny niche of right-wing Catholic intellectuals who like to daydream about an America very different than the one that exists. Individual writers in that circle (like Vermeule and Deneen—see my discussion of them above in a different context) have an influence, but not in the sense that they’re inspiring a political movement to make Roman Catholicism an established church in the United States.
One thing that could change this somewhat is a future Republican president appointing Vermeule (who teaches at Harvard Law School) to a top government job, either in the White House or Justice Department. Come back with a follow-up question if that happens (which it might!).
mel ladi
What’s your advice for the politically homeless in terms of activism and political change? Where should we put our efforts to change our politics? Should we put energy into a third party? Vote moderate and bipartisan whenever possible? Contribute to the best organizations working in that space?
Good question, but I’m not a great person to answer it. I’m not a joiner. I do my part to improve our politics by writing essays that hopefully increase understanding of our situation. And I vote. But that’s about it.
I will say, though, that I’m very opposed to the third-party idea. Our electoral system puts enormous obstacles in the way of third parties doing much more than serving as a spoiler.
On a more positive note, I am intrigued by various runoff-voting schemes, especially in primaries. These can go a long way toward empowering moderates and undermining the electoral strength of extremists. So maybe donate to an organization (like this one) doing the work of getting such experiments adopted in states around the country. I have concerns about whether such reforms are well-suited to a low-trust society like ours. But so far the result have been fairly positive. Check this space for possible future reassessment of my position.
Besides that, yes, voting for moderate candidates is important. You could also do what I’ve done since 2004 and vow not to vote for Republicans until the fever breaks and they return to their senses. But that’s your call. If you think the Democrats pose an equal and opposite threat to the country, then such a stand might not seem reasonable to you.
Alison Dagnes
How do you see the angertainment industry in right-wing media playing out? Audience demands for negative partisanship mean the financial incentives compel these outlets to stoke grievance, anger, and polarization. But then the audience stays tethered to the most extreme people and ideas on the right because they are reinforced by the only media they trust. How do you think this ends (besides badly)?
It ends badly. Sorry. But that is the short answer.
Now here’s a slightly longer (and just ever so slightly more idealistic) answer: One thing that makes politics a distinctive form of human endeavor is that it sometimes calls us to acts of noble sacrifice. Note that your question (and the underlying reality you’re describing) treats it as obvious that these right-wing outlets will continue on this path because it’s profitable. It certainly is. But people don’t always do anything to make money, especially when they’re already pretty well off.
Who knows when or if it will ever happen. But it just might be the case that we reach a point where media outlets decide, you know, this is a bridge too far. I know, that sounds pretty crazy after watching the latest example of far-right incitement from Tucker Carlson on Fox News, let alone whatever garbage they peddle at OAN or Newsmax these days. But history doesn’t just move in one direction. People change their minds, reconsider, shift priorities. That’s one thing that makes human beings so interesting: They can always surprise you. So let’s hope this happens—that what you call the angertainment industry comes to its senses, and in doing so encourages right-leaning voters to do the same.
John Murphy
All the talk about saving democracy in the run up to the midterms got me thinking about how many of the liberal victories of the postwar era were actually not achieved democratically at all but were the result of judicial or executive actions. To what degree, if any, do you think the anger and alienation on the right is driven by the belief that liberals have rigged the game by using the courts to do an end run around the legislative process of debate and compromise and that by delivering liberal outcomes on things like abortion, affirmative action, busing etc., where there was not an underlying political consensus, they inflamed, rather than settled these issues?
That’s a provocative argument, and one that liberals should heed. In pushing for change, especially on fraught cultural issues, it’s generally better to ground reform in public opinion and legislative action than to rely on executive fiat or judicial edict, both of which can provoke a potent backlash. Sometimes the backlash doesn’t dissipate, allowing it to exact revenge even decades later. See: Roe v. Wade.
Yet it’s also important to recognize that the head of the executive branch is elected, members of the federal courts are appointed by the elected president, and the bureaucrats who staff the administrative state are given their marching orders and overseen by elected members of Congress and the president. One reason why the Warren and Burger courts handed down some very liberal rulings is that its members were appointed during liberalism’s highwater mark in the mid-20th century. (How high was that mark? High enough that Democrats enjoyed supermajority margins in Congress during the 1930s and ‘60s.) Likewise, the rightward swing on the current court is partly a function of the pendulum swinging in a more rightward direction over the past 40 years. (Republicans have also played hardball and gotten quite lucky with the timing of deaths and retirements on the bench.)
In sum, I’d say both parties would be better off enacting changes through Congress than through the courts—but they also need to recognize that the courts (and executive-branch staffers) are ultimately more democratically accountable than it sometimes appears.
Russell Arben Fox
A non-political question! Partly prompted by your comment elsewhere about the David Bowie documentary Moonage Daydream, and partly because of a deep dive I'm doing into the pop music of 1983. So, 40 years ago the Second British Invasion was at its height; under the umbrella label "New Wave," songs by all sorts of synth-heavy, electronica, and/or dance-pop bands were shooting up the charts. In the midst of this, Bowie released Let's Dance, his biggest-selling album ever. I'm not a Bowie scholar, but I am aware that some see this as a very successful New Wave, funk-by-way-of-Europop record, whereas many others (including, I think, Bowie himself?) have seen it as a depressing sell-out to American top 40 radio. As someone who knows Bowie very well, and was, like me, 14 years old and listening to the radio in 1983, what say you?
Not only a non-political question—but one about music: Yes! Those who’ve started following my writing only with this Substack might not be aware that I occasionally wrote about rock music in my column at The Week. I loved (and miss) writing those pieces. I wonder, would my subscribers here welcome me mixing things up by throwing in a post now and then on music (or film, or a novel, or a play)?
In any event, I think it’s pretty clear that Bowie in 1982 was desperate for a hit. The Berlin-trilogy records released between 1977 and 1979 had been artistic triumphs but commercial flops. Scary Monsters (1980) didn’t sell a lot of copies either, despite being, for my money, his best album since Hunky Dory from 1971. His contract with RCA had just come to an end. He’d signed with EMI and very much wanted to make some money. But how to do it? Bowie decided the trick was to work with Nile Rodgers, who had enjoyed considerable jazz-soul-funk success with his band Chic and as a producer for Sister Sledge.
Everything Rodgers says on this Rolling Stone podcast about the experience of working with Bowie jibes with what I’ve heard from other sources. Bowie came into the studio with just a few new songs, and the idea of re-recording a few older tracks, like “China Girl,” his 1977 collaboration with Iggy Pop. Bowie pretty much handed over control to Rodgers, who brought in musicians he’d worked with before. The result was a project on which Bowie played a much more minimal role than usual. He basically sat in a room down the hall from the studio as Rodgers recorded backing tracks, and then Bowie would come in to do the vocals. And as usual, that didn’t take very long. (Bowie was famous for nailing a vocal part in just one or two takes.) Bowie was also responsible for bringing in Stevie Ray Vaughan to add electric guitar parts. That was a wild and inspired choice that Rodgers balked at when Bowie first suggested it. The distinctive sound and vibe of the completed album comes from that synthesis of swampy blues guitar licks and solos with the bold, punchy funk of the rest of the arrangements.
I’ve never been a big fan of the album. I think it’s always sounded like a flagrant bid for commercial success that lacked strong songs. “Modern Love” and the title track are Bowie classics. But “China Girl” hasn’t aged well (despite a fabulous vocal performance from Bowie), and the rest of the album is mostly filler. One exception is “Ricochet,” a mostly spoken-word groove-based experiment on Side 2 that they worked up in the studio. That’s interesting and gives a sense of what the record might have been if Bowie hadn’t dialed back his artistic ambitions for the project quite so far.
I also resent the album because it was so successful, and as a result sent Bowie off into a two-decade-long lost period in which he careened between failed efforts to land another hit and experimental misfires intended to re-establish his artistic credibility. Only with Heathen in 2002 did he finally regain the equilibrium that had sustained him through the 1970s. Thankfully, he would maintain it down to his untimely death in 2016.
Kevin Bowe
How can one be a conservative whose goal is to protect order and tradition in a time of accelerated change caused chiefly by technology? Are conservatives using progressives as a scapegoat for all the cultural change that has been driven by non-political factors like markets and technology?
Another big, sweeping question that covers much of what I’ve been writing about since 2014. While I admit that it often feels like the pace of cultural change is accelerating, modernity from the beginning has been defined in part by the experience of what always seems like rapid changes in society, culture, and the economy. It might be that technology accelerates the change, or maybe it just exposes us to so much information about the world around us that we only perceive more viscerally the change that’s been happening all along. I’m unsure which it is, or how one would set about determining which is the more accurate interpretation. (We’re all in the process we’re trying to understand.)
Either way, I think it’s important to recognize that the conservative impulse as you describe it—a self-conscious effort to maintain order and tradition—is itself a response to this experience of change, happening as its sociological counterpart. That’s something that politically engaged conservatives often miss entirely—namely, the fact that their own efforts are a part of a single process of historical change. This is important because it implies, as your question suggests, that conservatives aren’t just passively observing changes driven by progressives who possess all the agency and power. I think it’s probably more accurate to say that certain changes are always happening, progressives want to take credit for and direct them to progressive ends, but conservatives want to stop, control, redirect, and/or redefine them for their own contrary purposes.
In my experience, looking at things this way has the effect of allowing me to appreciate the cases for and against each side in this argument or battle. I understand why progressives always long for things to become more just and believe the achievement of this goal is just around the corner. I also understand why conservatives fear and resist these changes, and why some of them fall prey to fantasies of enacting a reversal that would prevent the changes from happening in the first place.
Modernity, in political terms at least, is the continual enactment and re-enactment this battle.
Linker, I appreciate very much your nuanced take on my question about John Gray. You very well confirmed my suspicions that his proverbial Warholian 15 minutes of fame--about all any even semi-serious writer can get these days, to be fair--expired well before the rise of Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Putin, et al. Likewise, it predated Brexit in his land, which was accompanied by a succession of bumbling Tory prime ministers in Westminster that made it exceedingly more dramatic than it would have been in more sober times (i.e., Thatcher, Major, Blair). Knowing him, he probably predicted the subsequent UK chaos at the same time while cheerleading the "Leave" forces. As you imply, he was probably not read by enough people on these shores to have made an impact on the current US neo-authoritarian movement, due to his unrelenting pessimism about the human condition. Americans, by and large, except for certain ethnic groups and Southern Whites, have never given it the time of day in days gone by. Say what you will, but the MAGA hordes are declinists when Democrats are in power and full-throated, Reagan-like optimists when the GOP sits in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That, of course, would hold true for left-wingers when every Republican president since Nixon sat in the White House, but we do not hear as much from them these days, except if one hangs around a college campus, youth hangout, or Twitter too much. As for Gray, I imagine he, like generations of other other Brit social commentators/academics everywhere on the political spectrum before him, tries to think as little about the U.S. as he possibly can, and when he does, he probably views our decrepit, sewer-stinking political culture with more than a bit of schadenfreude, if not outright derision. After all, in his and others' sights in the UK, those damn Americans have made out ever since the nation's founding as if they were virtuous redeemers of Western Civilization from the corrupt Old World. Now they are getting theirs, as developed, literate nations of any kind always will at some point. To conclude, I suspect Americans are going to need more than a stiff drink if they are going to stomach the likes of his "Straw Dogs"--illegal substances would be needed instead. Anyway, thanks for fielding my question!
Consider me a very strong "yes!" in favor of you "mixing things up by throwing in a post now and then on music (or film, or a novel, or a play)"; as you know, I think your writing on different forms of pop (and high!) culture is one of your strong suits, and I'd hate to see that go away just because your gig at The Week did. (Just think of it this way: Substack is the new blogging!) As for your answer to my question, thanks very much; I'm going to find the time to give that Nile Rodgers interview a listen. Your perspective on the arc of Bowie's career is interesting; I agree that the following couple of albums were lackluster (though "Blue Jean" is possibly my single favorite Bowie track of his whole career), but as I've dove into 1983, I find Bowie's artistic and cultural engagements during this period really fascinating (think The Hunger, Labyrinth, and his confrontation with MTV here: https://www.mtv.com/news/w50hpx/david-bowie-calls-mtv-out-black-artists-diversity). Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, and the link.