andrew sullivan, theodore h. white lecture (2011)

8/10/2019 Andrew Sullivan, Theodore H. White Lecture (2011)

1/66

T H. W S P P

A S


2/66


3/66

3T - A T H. W L

T b C

History of the Theodore H. White Lecture .........................................................5

Biography of Andrew Sullivan ............................................................................7

Biographies of Thomas Frank and David Nyhan .............................................9

Welcoming Remarks by Alex S. Jones ...............................................................11

Awarding of the David Nyhan Prize for Political Journalismto Thomas Frank ...........................................................................................11

The 2011 Theodore H. White Lecture on Press and PoliticsConservatism and Its Discontents by Andrew Sullivan ......................................................................................16

The 2011 Theodore H. White Seminar on Press and Politics .........................33

Alex S. Jones, Director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press,Politics and Public Policy (moderator)

Tad Devine, Democratic media consultant for presidential campaigns;founder, Devine Mulvey; IOP Fellow

Thomas Frank, 2011 Nyhan Prize recipient; author and columnist,Harpers magazine

Nia-Malika Henderson, national political reporter, The Washington Post

Jill Lepore, David Woods Kemper 41 Professor of American History,Harvard University; sta writer, The New Yorker

Mark McKinnon, Republican communications strategist; columnist,The Daily Beast; Reidy Fellow, Shorenstein Center

Andrew Sullivan, blogger and political commentator; The Daily Beast;2011 Theodore H. White Lecturer


4/66


5/66

5T - A T H. W L

The Theodore H. White Lecture com-memorates the life of the reporter andhistorian who created the style and setthe standard for contemporary political journalism and campaign coverage.

White, who began his journal-ism career delivering the Boston Post,entered Harvard College in 1932 on anewsboys scholarship. He studied Chi-nese history and oriental languages. In

1939 he witnessed the bombing of Chungking while freelance reporting ona Sheldon Fellowship.

In 1959 White sought support for a 20-year research project, a retro-

spective of presidential campaigns. After being advised by fellow reportersto drop this academic exercise, White took to the campaign trail, and, rel-egated to the zoo plane, changed the course of American political jour-nalism with the publication of The Making of a President, in 1960. The 1964,1968, and 1972 editions of The Making of a President, along with America inSearch of Itself, remain vital documents to the study of campaigns and thepress.

Before his death in 1986, White also served on the Visiting Commi ee

here at the Kennedy School of Government; he was one of the architectsof what has become the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics andPublic Policy.


6/66


7/66

7T - A T H. W L

Andrew Sullivan , one of theworlds most widely read bloggers, is a political com-mentator and the author of

ve books. His blog nowappears on The Daily Beast.Sullivan was born in 1963 in asmall town in southern Eng-land. He a ended MagdalenCollege, Oxford, where he waspresident of the Oxford Unionin his second year at college.Sullivan is a graduate of Har-

vards Kennedy School of Government (MPA86) and received his Ph.D.from Harvard in 1990.

He worked at The New Republic as deputy editor under Hendrik Her - berg, and in June of 1991, at the age of 27, was appointed acting editor. InOctober, he took over as editor, and presided over 250 issues of The NewRepublic. In the late 1990s, Sullivan worked as a contributing writer andcolumnist for The New York Times Magazine , a regular contributor to TheNew York Times Book Review , and a weekly columnist for The Sunday Times

of London. Sullivan has been a columnist for Time magazine and a regularguest on HBOs Real Time with Bill Maher and NBCs Chris Ma hews Show.In the summer of 2000, Sullivan became one of the rst mainstream

journalists to experiment with blogging and soon developed a large onlinereadership with andrewsullivan.coms Daily Dish. Andrew blogged inde-pendently and for Time.com and, in February 2007, moved his blog to The-Atlantic.com, where he was a senior editor for the magazine. In April 2010,Andrew moved to The Daily Beast.


8/66


9/66

9T - A T H. W L

Thomas Frank is the author of several books, including Whats the Ma er with Kan -sas?, The Wrecking Crew and Pity the Billion-aire. He is a columnist for Harpers magazineand has been a contributing editor to themagazine since 2004. He was a columnistfor The Wall Street Journal from 2008 until2010. He has received a Lannan award and been a guest columnist for The New YorkTimes. Frank grew up in Kansas, has a Ph.D.in history from the University of Chicago,and now lives in Washington, D.C.

David Nyhan was a columnist and reporterat The Boston Globefor 30 years . A gradu-ate of Harvard College and a Shorenstein

Fellow in the spring of 2001, Nyhan was aregular participant in Shorenstein Centeractivities before, during and after his Fel-lowship. Nyhan died unexpectedly in 2005.In his eulogy Senator Edward Kennedy saidof Nyhan, Dave was a man of amazingtalent, but most of all he was a man of thepeople who never forgot his roots.In so

many ways, but especially in the daily example of his own extraordinarylife, Dave was the conscience of his community. The hallmark of DavidNyhans brand of journalism was the courage to champion unpopularcauses and challenge the powerful with relentless reporting and braveeloquence. In his memory, the Shorenstein Center established the DavidNyhan Prize for Political Journalism.


10/66


11/66

11T - A T H. W L

T T H. W LN b 17, 2011

Mr. Jones: Welcome to you all. Welcome to the John F. Kennedy Jr.Forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Univer-sity. I am Alex Jones, Director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press,Politics and Public Policy. Each year this night is a highlight in the year ofthe Shorenstein Center. But this year it is extra special because this is our25th anniversary year.

As some of you already know, the Shorenstein Center was founded in1986 as a memorial to Joan Shorenstein Barone, a truly remarkable televi-sion journalist who died of breast cancer after a distinguished career thatwas all too short. Her father, Walter Shorenstein, endowed the Center asa place for focused and searching examination of the intersection of thepress, politics and public policy. Walter Shorenstein not only made theCenter possible, but remained vitally interested in what we did and wasour unstinting supporter and friend. Last year after a long and extraordi-nary life he died at the age of 95. We miss him and we mourn him.

He was above all else a great citizen. And the Theodore White Lectureand the David Nyhan Prize are to recognize that same kind of engaged,

active citizenship of a journalistic perspective. Im proud to say that at hismemorial service in San Francisco his son, Doug Shorenstein, who is herewith us tonight, said his fathers two achievements that made him proud-est were his family and the Shorenstein Center. He was our goad and ourgreat friend, our benefactor and our visionary ally. I can say quite franklythat he really did inspire us.

The Kennedy School is a place built for people who come here to learnhow they can change the world. And that is why the Shorenstein Center

belongs here and why it is so ing that it should be so big a part of WalterShorensteins enduring legacy. Im very glad to say that the gauntlet has been passed. With us tonight as I said are his son, Doug Shorenstein, andhis daughter Carole Shorenstein Hays and also here is his great-niece,Marissa Shorenstein. I would ask that the members of the Shorensteinfamily stand while we pay tribute to them and the family. (Applause)

A bit later you will hear our Theodore White Lecturer for 2011,Andrew Sullivan. First I have another task to perform, which is also anhonor. In 2005 we at the Shorenstein Center lost another great and muchadmired friend, David Nyhan. Some of you did not know David, and Iwant to speak of him brie y as this year we bestow the seventh annualDavid Nyhan Prize for Political Journalism.


12/66

12 T - A T H. W L

David Nyhan was a man of many parts, a devoted family man, a loyalpal, the best company in the world. He was a real Boston guy, a big hand-some man with a mischievous smile and sparkly eyes and that rare powerto raise everyones spirits and make it seem like a party just by walkinginto the room. I can still feel the glow he imparted as a Fellow at the Sho-renstein Center. Tonight we honor David Nyhan, the consummate reporterand political journalist, which is the role that occupied much of his life andin which he could not be bested. David was a reporter and then a colum-nist at The Boston Globe and his work had both a theme and a character.

The theme was almost always power, political power. And also espe-cially the abuse of political power by the bigshots at the expense of the li leguys. But he also loved politicians. As a group he respected them. He feltthey were often given a raw deal and judged by a standard that was smug

and sanctimonious, two things David never was. He was a self-avowed lib-eral and not defensive about it. Were he with us today he would relish thecoming ba le for the White House. And he would have had some fun withthe ga es and goofs of the Republican primary.

But he would not have been predictable. He was always surprising hisreaders with his take on things because most of all David Nyhan was hisown man and he called them as he saw them. In his memory and honor,the Nyhan Family and many friends and admirers of David Nyhan have

endowed the David Nyhan Prize for Political Journalism to recognize thekind of gutsy, stylish and relentless journalism that David Nyhan embod-ied. Davids wife, Olivia, is with us tonight as are his children, Veronica,Kate and Nick and other members of the Nyhan family and I would like toask them all to please stand. (Applause)

This years David Nyhan Prize for Political Journalism is awarded toThomas Frank. Thomas Frank is from Kansas, something that has informedhis life and career in ways that may have been unexpected even to him. Hewas born actually in Kansas City, Missouri, then grew up a bit west, acrossthe state line in Mission Hills, Kansas. As those of you who know yourhistory will remember Kansas before the Civil War was a hotbed of aboli-tionist sentiment and was known as Bleeding Kansas for the violent ba leswith slave holders. Politically, 19th-century Kansas might reasonably becalled radically liberal by the standards of the day. It is now among themost reliably conservative states in the nation.

Thomas Franks 2004 blockbuster, Whats the Ma er with Kansas? , wasa native sons careful, albeit polemical, analysis of why Kansas is the way

it is. And as Frank saw it, the way Kansas is, is almost crazy. Crazy in thatpeople there act against their own best interest, both politically and evenculturally. Frank has been called the great chronicler of the American para-dox. He views that paradox through the eyes of a former conservative who


13/66

13T - A T H. W L

changed his mind. He concluded in fact that the views of the people of hishome state and much of the great conservative movement, from his per-spective, were based on what he considered a huge deception. He calledit the backlash. And he described it as a cynical manipulation of culturalvalues.

Now, what did he mean by that? As for instance when small farmersin the name of small government passed their votes for a Wall Streetdesigned program that will eventually push them o their land. Andwhere the wealthiest and most privileged managed to convince the coun-try that they speak on behalf of the people. As for instance when a pro-lifestance trumps any other concerns, such as job safety or economic empow-erment. As he put it, and Im quoting him now, Ignoring ones economicself-interest may seem a suicidal move to you and me, but viewed in a dif-

ferent way it is an act of noble self-denial, a sacri ce to a holier cause.The thing about Thomas Frank, though, is that he managed to make

his passionate case with humor and a wry sense of the absurd that madeWhats the Ma er with Kansas? both an iconic political rant and a huge best-seller. That book is only one of many, the most recent being Pity the Billion-aire , which examines with mere wonder how a capitalistic meltdown andcatastrophic economic collapse for the mass has been turned into a greatpro t for the few. And at the same time the founding fathers had been

reconceived as heroes from an Ayn Rand novel and the powerless havesuccessfully been enlisted into a fan club for the prosperous. Perhaps hewill tell us what he thinks of Occupy Wall Street.

Thomas Frank is a graduate of the University of Kansas, has a Ph.D.in history from the University of Chicago. He is an author, journalist andcolumnist for Harpers magazine and formerly wrote extensively for TheWall Street Journal . His sense of outrage would endear him to David Nyhanas would his sense of humor. The winner of this years David Nyhan Prizefor Political Journalism, Thomas Frank.(Applause)

Mr. Frank: So I really dont knowwhat to say about being here. When Istarted out in journalism back in the1990s I never expected to be the kind of journalist that won prizes, never, ever,ever. The whole idea was to declare war on clich and war on consensus.And I accepted that there would be no prizes in it, that was the price. So be

it. Things have changed. We live today in a time of catastrophic intellectualdysfunction. Just three years ago and with scarcely any warning from jour-nalists, politicians, the economists, the nancial industry upped and threat -ened to ing the entire world economy over a cli .

We live today in a time ofcatastrophic intellectual

dysfunction.


14/66

14 T - A T H. W L

Now the consensus view up until that point was that an event likethat was impossible, right? We were supposed to be living in this sort ofwised-up period in which all seeing markets had sliced up risk and spreadit around so wisely that global catastrophic events were impossible. Butthe consensus view was of course completely wrong. And the consensusview was wrong in 2003 when it accepted the presidents explanation forthe Iraq War. And the consensus view was wrong in 1999 and 2000 whenit saw ever-rising tech prices, not as a bubble, but as evidence of man-kinds growing savviness about investing. And the consensus was wrongall along when it assured us again and again and again that what madeAmerica exceptional among the industrialized nations of the world wasour acceptance of extreme inequality.

Now, we are sometimes told that we have entered a new age of

enlightenment with Facebook and aggregators and the celebrities tweetingeach to each. But I sometimes think the opposite is true. Outside of placeslike Boston and New York and Washington, D.C., people scarcely knowany longer about what is going on in their state governments. Becausewhat is left of their local newspapers doesnt bother to tell them. And theycant tell them. They dont have any reporters out in Topeka or where everit is. Think about it. The most vital political movement of our time, andhere I dont mean Occupy Wall Street, but the doppelgnger on the other

side, the Tea Party movement is based on a vision of reality that is so per-verse that it can really only exist in a kind of closed-o mental universethat brings North Korea to mind.

But through it all our Washington, D.C. consensus just chugs merrilyalong, nothing can put a dent in its self-assurance. But a few things havechanged. When I rst moved to Washington back in 2003 I was told thatmy views were outside the consensus. This is a great phrase. I love thatphrase. You always hear it in Washington. They say thats outside the con-sensus. I was outside the consensus and therefore my views didnt needto be considered. Well, I was proud to be in that spot back then. But I amin nitely prouder to be here with you tonight. Thank you, very much.(Applause)

Mr. Jones: I think its fair to say that we have two speakers tonightwho are outside the consensus, but in a somewhat di erent way. Theo -dore H. White was a consummate reporter whose passion was politics. Hecame to Harvard on a newsboys scholarship and went on to a very distin-guished career as a journalist and also a historian. Indeed, Teddy White, as

he was universally known, changed both political journalism and politicswhen he wrote The Making of the President in 1960 about the Kennedy-Nixon campaign. For the rst time he raised the curtain on the warts andall side of presidential campaigns and changed campaign coverage forever.


15/66


16/66

16 T - A T H. W L

personally immoral, but can legally accept the concept of abortions in therst trimester. He endorsed George W. Bush in 2000. But in 2004 he went

for John Kerry and then last time around for Barack Obama. He is stronglyfor gay marriage and, indeed, is married to his partner. But in a view typi-cal of him he is critical of civil unions, which he has dubbed marriagelight and has argued that civil unions weaken the unique status of mar-riage, both for gays and lesbians and heterosexuals.

Andrew Sullivan was born in England and took a rst in modern his -tory and modern languages at Magdalen College at Oxford. He was electedpresident of the Oxford Union, which describes itself as the worlds mostfamous debating society. He is also a graduate of the Kennedy School ofGovernment and has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard. He began hiscareer at The New Republic and became its editor ve years after joining the

magazine. His broad view of what was interesting and germane promptedhim to expand the magazines focus from political coverage to culturalissues and the politics surrounding them, a theme that has been consistentfrom then on.

He got into trouble, something that doesnt seem to bother him much,at The New Republic when he published excerpts from The Bell Curve ,a controversial book that linked race and intelligence. He solved whatamounted to a sta revolt by publishing lengthy rebu als from 19 writers

and contributors. But he has continued to defend his position that the bookhas some genuine insights. Again, he is eager for debate but slow to backdown. In 2000 he began his blog, the Daily Dish, which has become a perchthat has made him one of the most in uential and best-read commentatorsand analysts of politics and culture. The blog is now at home at The DailyBeast.

He was reared Catholic and has termed the Catholic Church the insti-tution closest to his heart. But he is also a erce opponent of the kind ofrigid fundamentalism that he sees in the Catholic Church and elsewhere.But again, Andrew Sullivan says, To dismiss all religious people based onthe actions of the most literalist dumb ones, I think, is bigotry. His con-servatism, to his mind, is the traditional kind. He is a scal conservative, alimited-government conservative, with a strong streak of libertarianism onsocial issues. He is also a conservative who opposes government involve-ment with things like prostitution and the use of marijuana, as civil rightsissues.

I think the only way to sum up Andrew Sullivans point of view is to

say that it is fearless and his own. He says what he thinks. It is my honor topresent the 2011 Theodore White Lecturer, Andrew Sullivan. (Applause)

Mr. Sullivan: Well, thank you so much for that very generous intro-duction. My great fantasy about Judge Judy is that she would get to do


17/66

17T - A T H. W L

the interview with Sarah Palin, but it never happens. Can you imagine?(Laughter)

If it doesnt make sense it isnt true. Thats something that Judge Judyis known for. And its words to live by. I want to thank Harvard, this placewhich I walked into as a just-21year old in 1984, especially the KennedySchool of Government for its great forgiveness of my delinquency. I set arecord at the time for an MPA studenttaking 15 of the 16 required credits out-side the Kennedy School, because myinterests didnt quite t entirely withinnumber crunching. And they changedthe rules after that. So Im glad to beresponsible for greater discipline in the

Kennedy School of Government.Im here tonight to talk about con-

servatism, which I think it is not controversial to say, is in some sort ofcrisis and has been in a sort of crisis for quite a long time now. And whatis staggering is when I go to campuses and talk about conservatism, theconservatism I speak of seems unrecognizable to the students of today.I studied conservatism right here. I wrote a dissertation on perhaps thegreatest conservative political philosopher of all time, Michael Oakesho ,

as obscure as he is profound. And I read Burke and Aristotle and saturatedmyself in Catholic social thought as well.I do not recognize the current Republican Party as in any way a con-

servative force in this society. And I want to explain tonight why. For me,conservatism is fundamentally deeply about the limits of human beings.Its about the tragedy of the human condition. It is about the paradox ofprogress. It is about questioning the lib-eral assumption that we have a solutionto the problems of mankind. It under-stands that society is not a formula,it cannot be reduced to mathematicalequations as in economics. The socialscience is an oxymoron. That culturema ers, that we grow up and evolveand absorb so much from our parentsand our countries and our cultures that as adults we really are across theworld di erent people and constantly changing. That this is a dynamic

landscape full of new plants and ancient old trees.And our job as conservatives is to tend to it, to prune it, to manage it,

to garden this beautiful inheritance. And along with a sense of tragedy isalso the relief and release of joy. Oakesho described it as the preference

I do not recognize the

current RepublicanParty as in any way aconservative force in

this society.

...conservatism...is insome sort of crisis and

has been in a sort ofcrisis for quite a long

time now.


18/66


19/66

19T - A T H. W L

taught by the man who wrote the classic book on that, Daniel Bell, a manwhom I revere for his intellectual integrity.

I want brie y to talk about two great crises that we are now confront -ing, which to my mind demand this conservatism, which prove the casethat now more than ever this tradition is necessary to rescue our societyand indeed our world. And its striking absence from our polity, except,to some extent in this president, the best conservative president since BillClinton. And certainly u erly absent and purged from the RepublicanParty which claims absurdly, preposterously, outrageously the wordconservative.

Look at our debt crisis. Now, our debt crisis is caused by many factorsand I think we can all agree over many generations both parties shouldtake some of the blame. Part of it, a conservative would say, comes from

the long-term consequences of the Great Society, itself a utopian idea thatis now foundering upon mathematics and generational change, genera-tional imbalance, created by the ideology that if you just cut taxes some-how growth will occur and de cits wont ma er. Two complete ideologiesfoisted upon this country that have helped undermine it. It was createdin many ways with good intent. Who could deny the elderly prescriptiondrugs? It was also created critically by two wars, both of which bankruptedus and were put outrageously again o budget by the Bush administration

that trashed whatever conservative principles it ever had.But there is, I would argue, nonetheless an obvious conservative solu-tion to this crisis, without going over and dividing over who is to blame,without parroting some ideology or the cliches that we hear in debate afterdebate in this circus of a Republican primary, in which no actual propos-als are made to address the actual problems that we have. But our debt issoluble. It is easy to solve. And we all know the solution. It has been donein other countries, it can be done here very easily. In fact here we have agolden opportunity to do it, quickly, easily and restore con dence to theworld markets.

And if we truly had a conserva-tive party in this country it would bedoing so right now. It would be sayingwe have a constitutional system withtwo parties. Both of them have vestedinterests. Both of them represent legiti-mate parts of this country. One is x -

ated on keeping taxes low. One likes to keep its spending, shoveling to itsown special interest groups and indeed to the needy. Well, both have totake a hit. Personally I would prefer spending cuts to be three to one to taxincreases. But that tax increases have to happen is a mathematical fact. And

Personally I wouldprefer spending cuts tobe three to one to tax

increases.


20/66

20 T - A T H. W L

the denial of it, the ability of this deranged Republican Party, to even forcethis country into an unnecessary default because they will not accept thatfact is not conservative, it is destructive, it is radical and it is hostile to thepolitical order and institutions of government.

It can be done, in other words. And at the same time, I might say, thereis a great conservative argument for tax reform of the 1986 kind. A tax codeloaded with all sorts of reductions for all sorts of special interests. Itself themain reason we have lobbyists in Washington, itself the main reason they

remain a cancer on our body politic andkeep stopping the peoples will from being implemented. That could be doneaway with if we went to a simple tax.I prefer a at one, but you could have

three very simple rates, and got rid ofall the deductions, you would save somuch money you could raise revenuesand reduce the rates of taxation which

might act as disincentives to entrepreneurship and growth. It is rare thatwe come across a solution so clearly suited to our times that would actu-ally restore con dence in this country, increase growth in this country andreassure the world. And yet the conservative party seeks to turn this into

brinkmanship and push us over a scal and nancial cli .The second obvious crisis which we are in the 10th year of, 11th yearof, is the war, the religious war that has come out of the sad degenerationof many of our great religions into fundamentalist sects. And nowhere Ithink is the danger clearer and more salient than in the current con ict between Iran and Israel. We have been told, and we know now, that the

Israeli government has said it willnot even inform the United States ifit launches a rst strike upon Iransnuclear facility. Such a strike would, inmy opinion, unleash the third worldwar. A rst strike by the Jewish stateupon an Islamic nation is a declarationof religious war at a global level.

For all the success we have had, pri-marily under this president, in defusing

this terrible con ict, this religious con ict that is by far the most danger -

ous form of warfare because the stakes are divine and God demands totalsacri ce is terrifying, the prospect of this initiating. And yet we sit hereas if nothing is going on. When the ex-chief of the Mossad is going publicin Israel and saying the people running this country are crazy and capable

...religious conict...is by

far the most dangerousform of warfare because

the stakes are divineand God demands total

sacrice...

...the conservative partyseeks to turn this into

brinkmanship and push

us over a scal andnancial cliff.


21/66

21T - A T H. W L

of launching a preemptive war at any moment, we know we are in greatdanger, especially since the United States would be directly implicated asIsraels chief ally in the Middle East.

Now, you will nd no one in this room more hostile to the despi -cable regime in Tehran, no one. As a blogger I followed hourly, minute by minute, for a month that amazing, astonishing revolution of hope, ofyouth, of pluralism, of freedom and offaith. I stand with them. I stand with thepeople of Iran and not with the vicious,vile, murderous, mischievous regime.But I dont believe that it is possibleat any point in the future to stop thecountry with the sophistication and the

ability of Iran for developing a nuclear bomb capacity. I do believe they aredoing so, even though I keep remind-ing myself of the fantastic error I madein 2003 in accepting the bullshit thatwas served up as intelligence of IraqsWMDs.

I also dont believe that this regime in Iran wants to commit suicide.

I do not understand why mutually assured destruction, which kept thepeace in this world for 50 years between the U.S. and the Soviet Union,isnt applicable somehow to the Middle East. Iran does not have a record,even under this vile regime, of actually a acking other countries, exceptthough proxies. Israel has a acked many more foreign countries than Iranon a regular basis. My view is that what we need is George Kennan. Whatwe need is a true conservative approach to this which wants to containIran, not the crazy George W. Bush style preemptive war that created suchchaos and murder.

I believe we need containment, not preemptive war. Because I thinkpreemptive war will also destroy the State of Israel, completely de-legiti-mize its existence and possibly lead to the extinction of many of the Jewishpeople who live in Israel. And I stand before you also a very proud andfervent Zionist. These great crises, and I think they are real, deserve a con-servative response. A conservative response that believes in stability, that believes in reforming institutions in line with their current existence, xingthe problems that are obvious and not xing things that dont need to be

xed.I want to just correct something. I do not believe in the privatization

of Social Security. Ive learned my lesson. I did once. Ive seen the experi-ments, both in Britain and in Chile and other places of this. And frankly

I do not understandwhy mutually assured

destruction, which keptthe peace in this worldfor 50 years between

the U.S. and the SovietUnion, isnt applicable

somehow to theMiddle East.


22/66

22 T - A T H. W L

looking at the stock market over the last 10 years, I dont think I want tocommit the savings and future of so many people to the extraordinarygyrations of that market.

Containment and stability in the Middle East to allow and to permitthis astonishing and conservative bubbling up from the young and the ide-alistic of democracy in the Middle East, which is a fantastic developmentand is an organic development. The contrast between conservatism and

liberalism as I understand it would beexactly the contrast between what hap-pened in Tunisia and what we tried toimpose in Iraq. Democracy, a conserva-tive understands, has to come from theculture and not be imposed on it. And

when some Bush o cials said we createreality, they were telling us that theyhad left conservatism far, far behind.

So this is conservatisms moment. Itis the time we need desperately for a sober conservative force in the world.We do have one, to some extent, in our president, a man whose tempera-ment and whose judgments are empirical and who is, in my view, a natu-ral Burkean conservative, which is why he is despised so much by the radi-

cal party that opposes him.But one nal thing. Conservatism has also been associated in recentyears with capitalism. And capitalism, market capitalism, proper marketcapitalism which means regulated market capitalism according to AdamSmith, is a great and wonderful thing. It is the most and has been the great-est engine for human wealth and material well being that we have everseen. And the last 10 years have been a miracle, a miracle around the devel-oping world in which peoples lives have been immeasurably improvedthrough the engine of capitalism.

Its only this country, forced now to compete with billions of newcompetitors, that is su ering. And we regard it as a crisis that we are goingthrough a recession which means simply that our wealth collectively isthe same now as it was in 2001. I do not want in any way to minimize themisery and di culty of many people in this country who are struggling to

nd jobs and make ends meet. I do not. But I do want to say that their stan -dard of living is something that their predecessors in this country for hun-dreds of years would have thought simply miraculous. That the notion that

a society cannot really exist and be stable unless it is constantly gainingmoney and wealth and material things is an illusion, a false god. Conserva-tism has always said that there are no solutions to the fundamental humanproblem except, ultimately, religion. And that is where religion comes in,

Democracy, aconservative

understands, has tocome from the culture

and not be imposedon it.


23/66

23T - A T H. W L

as a solace, not a means of power, not something that these fundamental-ists wield to control others, but something that truly spiritual people trustin silence to resolve the deepest problems.

And Ill end with Oakesho s lastpublished piece. He was going to writea piece, another essay, but never gotaround to it, which would have beenreally interesting. It was going to be onreligion. But this was about politics andabout our society now, what he calledthe civitas cupiditas , the society of want,material want. And he decided to tellthe story through the great and ancient

story told in many di erent culturesre ecting a deep human truth, beforeculture, the Tower of Babel. And I wantto read it to simply say that conserva-tism must never be about greed. Greedis a sin. It must be and society must pro-vide material well being. But that is notits goal. That is not our end. That is not

what we are here to do.As a Christian, I believe the amountof riches we build up will actually pre-vent us from living good and happylove- lled lives. Oakesho : In this version of the tale, the curtain risesupon Babel, a city full of the bustle of ge ing and spending. A vast vari -ety of enterprise is afoot. There is an endless proliferation of wants andsatisfactions. The inhabitants are noted for their ckleness. The generalatmosphere is one of moderate vulgarity. Art has degenerated into enter-tainment and the entertainments are aptto be crude.

The Babelians have no particularspectacular vices and no heroic virtues.They are easily seduced by novelty. Ifthey had Madame de Svigns gift ofintrospection, they too would exclaim,dear God, how I love fashion. They are self-absorbed and self-indulgent.

It is indeed a city of freedom, the home of every imaginable lib. Yet astranger come among them, might have recognized them also to be a di -cult people. There is an undercurrent of discontent, an aimlessness and anabsence of self-discipline. The stoic and martial virtues are notably absent

Conservatism hasalways said that thereare no solutions to the

fundamental humanproblem except,

ultimately, religion. Andthat is where religioncomes in, as a solace,not a means of power,

not something that thesefundamentalists wieldto control others, butsomething that truly

spiritual people trust insilence to resolve the

deepest problems.

...conservatism mustnever be about greed.

Greed is a sin.


24/66

24 T - A T H. W L

from their character. They are a wayward rather than a listless people. Andthey are resentful of government. Not as a wild and passionate peoplemaybe, but in the manner of spoiled children. Indeed, such order as thereis among them has for so long been maintained by bribes that this is theonly control they now kind of tolerate.

In short, Babel is let me interject, America is a civitas cupiditas.And its inhabitants, although not overwhelmingly a uent, are a peopledevoted to a uence. From one point of view, this tale of Babel is that of anemesis of greed. I feel the nemesis is at hand. Thank you. (Applause)

Mr. Jones: We are going to have a question period now. I have a ques-tion for you before we start, Andrew. Your portrait of America, in an oddway, is an interesting juxtaposition with Thomas Franks vision of Amer-ica. If you were calculating what you agree with and what you dont agree

with, with what you know and have heard of Thomas Frank, how wouldyou describe it?

Mr. Sullivan: I think almost all the most interesting liberals, like GarryWills, are formerly conservative. I didnt just read your book so Im havingto address some of the broader ideas within it. I think its largely right,except I think I would disagree about the solution and I think I woulddisagree about the way the government might redistribute wealth to over-come this problem.

What I found particularly good about your book was its refusal tocondescend to those who believe passionately as a religious question in thesanctity of human life. It is an immensely di cult question. And I thinkfrankly the Supreme Court bears a huge amount of responsibility for thedamage that this issue has done to this country by denying the people ofthis country the democratic ability to make the decision for themselvesabout what is a terribly di cult and complex moral issue. Which comes to

the point of this, that they are tragically,I think, misunderstanding or have beenmisled about religion. And I do thinkthat you dont have just a political crisis,you have a religious crisis.

Essentially whats happened howam I going to summarize this quickly

but basically, fundamentalism has replaced faith. Im not sure these peopleeven believe or even know what it is to believe. I sure dont. I think anyonereally in front of the godhead trying to understand as I do the mysteries of

my faith is not in any position to tell anybody else how to live his or herlife. And that move, the move from truth to power is the move that Jesusresisted. Its the move that Jesus resisted to his death.

...basically,fundamentalism has

replaced faith.


25/66

25T - A T H. W L

If God is God, I cannot know him, let alone know him well enoughto tell you how to live your life. That core concept of religious freedom issomething that Im afraid has been forgo en, has been bound up in cul -ture, in class and is being used cynically by some, especially in the Repub-lican Party, for political advantage. Isay this as a gay man who has beenamong the rst objects of a ack,according to these politics. So I thinkfrankly that liberal condescension towhich the heartland has a huge partof this too, this is a two-way street ofmisunderstanding. And what I reallyhope for Obama was his ability to try

and communicate.And I believe, and Im sorry

if there are a lot of disillusionedObama-ites here, I believe this presi-dent has tried as hard as anybodyhumanly could to overcome that divide and has met with the most repul-sive radical and obstructionist opposition that weve seen in a very longtime. (Applause)

I supported Obama not because he was a liberal, but because he wasa conservative. You remember my piece in The Atlantic , Goodbye to AllThat, that he was a post-con ict pragmatic believer, wanting to get a dealwith the Republicans. That which the Democratic base hates him for, I lovehim for. Sorry. So it means, just to nish, it is vital he be reelected, vital.And anybody who has any lack of enthusiasm about that needs to wakeup. (Applause)

Alex Remington : Thank you, very much. Im an MPP1. Thank youso much for coming to talk to us. When you mentioned earlier the failure,among others, of the media and the journalistic establishment in the run upto the 2008 nancial crisis, of course, the 2003 Iraq war and on and on andon, I wanted to ask what you as a journalist would like to suggest for theAmerican journalism industry. How does it get be er?

Mr. Sullivan: Get o cable news, number one. No serious journalistshould go on that circus. Secondly, the cult of the journalists as celebrity,with all the lucrative speaking gigs that it brings, I mean, the classic jour-nalistic trajectory in Washington is get a low-level reporting job. You can be

21 and a Politico sub-minimum wage Internet treadmill and your job is toget on MSNBC for 10 minutes. And then your job is to get famous and thenyour job is to give speeches and make the real money. Thats not what jour-nalists should be doing, obviously.

I believe this presidenthas tried as hard as

anybody humanly couldto overcome that divide

and has met with themost repulsive radical

and obstructionistopposition that weveseen in a very long time.


26/66

26 T - A T H. W L

Journalism in Washington is corrupted by clubbiness, by this consen-sus that you talked about, which unfortunately is not even that explicitlynoted. It is much more dangerous because it is completely subterranean.The notion that journalists have reputations, that we should be up on apedestal, maybe its because I am British, I think were the lowest of thelow. I think our job is to say things that no one else will say and to nd outthings that make people very uncomfortable, the powerful and the power-less. I think our job is not to worry about the impact of what we nd outand say but to say what we think and to report what we see.

I remember my own notorious now and widely derided obsessionwith Sarah Palin in the last election and my obvious question about herabsolutely ridiculous story about her alleged fth child. I wasnt allowed

to ask that question in the mainstream

media. I talked to lots of other reporterswho all wanted to know the answer. Isaid to one, Do you think this could betrue? Its so crazy. He said, I think itcould be true. I wonder how it gets intothe mainstream media. You are the bloody mainstream media! (Laughter)

And he said, Well, dont do it. It

will hurt your reputation. Who caresabout my reputation? I dont. I should be dead by now. I mean, at 30 years

old I was given six years to live. I dont regard that as a missive to telllies. Now, I havent told lies about this, but I have asked questions anddemanded answers and no answers were given. And part of the problemand part of what were seeing is that a whole class of politicians are not being open to the press in ways they really should be.

Sarah Palin ran for vice president as we know without a single pressconference. Staggering. You know why? Because each media unit wantedtheir own exclusive gig, their own li le interview they could sit down andpeddle as the exclusive get. So none of them got together and said you getup there and you answer everybodys questions until were done. This isa democracy. You are not a celebrity, you are a servant of the people. Andweve forgo en that and weve become rich and smug and clubby. And itkind of makes me sick. And I must say thats one of the reasons I love blog-ging. I love it. I can do what I want. Every day I can say whatever I want.

Now, if Im wrong Im commi ed to correcting it. And not just in spin -nage on the second page of The New York Times where anyone sees it, butright up there, right up front, right where I wrote the original piece. Thatskind of as a process over 10 years. Thats pre y great. I have 1.4 million fact

I think our job [as journalists] is not to

worry about the impactof what we nd out andsay but to say what we

think and to report whatwe see.


27/66

27T - A T H. W L

checkers. Within seconds if I get the spelling wrong of some Latin word Iwill get three emails within an instant. That relationship, I think, is why I believe that online journalism blogging contains within it a revival of citi-zen journalism in a way that can bringtruth back to a discourse.

Zachary Rosenfeld : Im an MPP1here at the school and fan of the blog,hope to one day win the View FromYour Window contest.

Mr. Sullivan: You can tell you are atHarvard. (Laughter)

Im staggered by that contest, by theway, the nerdiness of it is staggering.

Zachary Rosenfeld : I was hopingto ask you if you could expound onthe idea of utopianism and ideology. And I really wanted to press you onthe statement you said, Im an avid Zionist. To me I think of Zionism as being a sort of utopian idea of a way of remaking the world into something be er for the Jewish people. And Im wondering what makes that di erentthan something that you would describe as utopian?

Mr. Sullivan: Thats a brilliant question. Let me explain what I meant.

I was brought up with a deep sense of the Holocaust as unparalleled andunique mark of human evil. And it a ected me deeply. I visited Israelas a young man and it also a ectedme deeply. And I think the fact of thema er is it now exists. But I wrote apost, a throw-away line in the bloglately which you might have caughtonto, where I compared the euro withthe State of Israel. You may think thatselite, but let me explain why.

Both were born out of the secondWorld War, the acts of horror of the second World War really. One wasthe way to atone for the Shoah and to give the Jewish people nally a saferefuge. And I think that was incredibly noble, but yes, utopian vision.And I dont think of those being conservative would ever have agreed toit. And I happen to think at the time I dont know, but I think I probablywould have said no, which I know will make me lots of friends. The euro

too, Europes suicide in the rst part of the 20th century, grotesque suicide,and the desire to expunge that from history forever by creating a currencythat would unite this entire continent, rst of all the economic community.

I have 1.4 millionfact checkers. Withinseconds if I get the

spelling wrong of someLatin word I will get

three emails within aninstant.

...blogging containswithin it a revival of

citizen journalism in away that can bring truth

back to a discourse.


28/66

28 T - A T H. W L

It grew, but as it grew I think its utopianism accelerated and the euro, Ithink, was the step too far.

I nd the idea of a Europe where you can travel without boundar -ies, where trade is freely traded, where you can go wherever you want, towork in any country you want, I love the fact that like hundreds of thou-sands of Poles rebuilt parts of Britain, just love it. Its a fantastic American-ization churned in Europe, which I nd, considering its history, inspiring.But the euro is insane. It always was insane. And this is an example whereconservatism was right. Thatcher that was a joke (Laughter)

was correct. You cant possibly have a currency union without somekind of political or monetary union, you just cant. And at some point thesedi erent countries and cultures are going to reveal themselves and its allgoing to go down the tube. Similarly I am always reminded of The Onions

headline in its worlds worst entry collection, Jews Seek Homeland: Warweary Jews seek homeland between Syria, Egypt, Iran. Of all the places.(Laughter)

But I still think Israel could have survived. I think that the occupationof the West Bank and the disgusting treatment of the Palestinians in theWest Bank and the brutal a ack upon Palestinians in Gaza and the increas -ingly deranged fundamentalist nature of its government is potentiallyfatal. Im afraid it may have gone past the point of no return.

And here is the great Tower of Babel moment. You brought six toseven million Jews all together in a place where they are now vulnerable tomass extinction. Thats the paradox of utopianism.

Rohad Modar: Im an MPP1. Its really awesome to see you. I actuallywrote my nal thesis in college on Oakesho , so you were in my workcited.

Mr. Sullivan: Fantastic. Congratulations.Rohad Modar: It was an okay paper. (Laughter)Mr. Sullivan: Hes a tough nut to crack.Rohad Modar: My background is in social media and digital mobiliza-

tion. What Im really interested in is what is the online community miss-ing? How do we nd that ne balance between what happened in Tunisiaand what happened in Egypt online and someone just updating theirstatus about what they ate for lunch?

Mr. Sullivan: Do good journalism is the only answer to that andpeople will come. Everybody has a blog now called Facebook and itsgreat. And everyone is communicating, but I dont want to know when my

best friend just had a bowel movement. Im not that interested in the facthe saw something at Target three minutes ago. This is not world-sha eringevents. On the other hand, there is some fun. I have no problem. The web


29/66

29T - A T H. W L

is not zero-sum. The great thing about it is non zero-sum. Nothing is atthe expense of anything else because its an in nite expanse. So my viewis simply, use this new media, as we are beginning to gure out and I liketo think of the Dish as this sort of ice cu er, an experimental, because Ihave nobody to answer for, because I have total editorial control to try stuout, like the Iran coverage, which I think between me and a few others, weadvanced a whole new form of journalism like watching live events, whichis now part of The New York Times , part of the need to caucus. Do it andthey will come.

From the Floor: Hi, my name is Katie and Im a junior at the college.In one of your recent Ask Andrew videos and also in response to the rstquestion, you mentioned that in the `90s you were a writer with nothingto lose, but now it seems youre a writer with everything to lose, so how

have you managed to maintain that same way to challenge everything andchange your mind

Mr. Sullivan: I dont have anything to lose anymore.From the Floor: I mean in terms of reputation, readership.Mr. Sullivan: I dont care about my

reputation. I know that sounds pomp-ous in a way and I do think that twothings a ected me in that. One was the

HIV diagnosis young when it was stilluntreatable and surrounded by peopleI love who I saw dying. My best frienddied in front of me. We were diagnosed in the same month and he diedtwo years later and I watched it. I dont think he would want me to bullshitthe rest of my life. Thats why I wrote Virtually Normal . I inscribed the dateof the forward the date I found out I had HIV.

There is something wonderful about living posthumously. Because itis actually living now. Like when I read the Gospels I see in Jesus a manu erly without a care for the future, u erly without a care for his reputa -tion. A man who was silent when accused of something he was not guiltyof. Now, Im not equating myself. Im saying thats my goal and I fail, ofcourse, Im proud, I feel o ended, Im upset you know, there have beenseveral debates which Ive felt terribly wounded by. And in the `90s in thegay wars it was brutal. And I felt a acked by my own, the people I love.

The other thing is just being out as a gay man. When youre 21, 22, andyou want to be a journalist, you have a choice. You knew at that time it

could de ne you forever and marginalize you, or did you want to live yourlife? And I think I wanted to live my life. It was really about that. Screw it.I couldnt lie. So thats the answer. The truth is none of you in this room

There is somethingwonderful about living

posthumously.


30/66

30 T - A T H. W L

have anything to lose by telling the truth, except your own humiliation andrecognition of ones own fallibility.

From the Floor: Hi, Im Ari. Im doing a Ph.D. in literature and a hugefan of the Dish.

Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.From the Floor: Its a great honor to see you here. Thank you. My

question is about a problem you have observed with Obama and theRepublican eld and something thatsupporters of Israel think about Israeland the Arab world and that is, howdo you be reasonable with unreason-able people? And what is the tactic?What are the modes of argument, the

modes of interaction that can causepositive outcomes in relationshipsthat often seem like they are severelyasymmetrical?

Mr. Sullivan: This is another bril-liant question. I was thinking about this recently because again one comes back to the Gospels, I think. There is a tone of voice that I have to admit Ihave failed many times to adopt because Im a bit of an Irishman and occa-

sionally I get testosterone shots. But I think, I hope that over the years Ivemoderated a li le bit in terms of accepting other peoples point of view.And my favorite di using those moments are three words come tomind: Oh, come on, in a way that you allow the person not to lose face, but to somehow also acknowledge they are wrong in some respect. Creat-ing an atmosphere in which that is possible. And I think Obama has it, but

I think so few others do at this point.In the Gay Rights movement when I

started talking about marriage rights, Illcall you out, E.J. [Dionne], you reviewedVirtually Normal and you said, I lovethis book, except for the marriage stu .But E.J. is a reasonable person. When Ihad to go on Christian talk radio, whenI had to go up against Pat Buchanan,when I had to go up against the reli-gious Right, the temptation was to be so

angry and upset as to just scream. But I realized that, no, reason will winin the end. If I didnt believe that, I would not believe in liberal democ-racy. Reason will win in the end, calm reason, constantly, the arguments.I mean, we havent won every one. We have won the basic principle. We

The truth is none of you in this room have

anything to lose bytelling the truth, except

your own humiliationand recognition of ones

own fallibility.

We have got now

immovable marriagerights in at least a heftychunk of this country.

And we did so becauseour arguments were

better.


31/66

31T - A T H. W L

have got now immovable marriage rights in at least a hefty chunk of thiscountry. And we did so because our arguments were be er.

So my experience is that it works. And also in terms of more massivesocial protests, non-violence, always, against unreasonable people. Passiv-ity, it disarms them. It bewilders them.

Benjamin Esparza: Thank you, very much. Im a Dish-head. I guess Ihave the pleasure of the last question. I guess to follow up on that point,my question is what do you think the end game is? And in going back toyour presentation and the things you have talked about tonight, it seemslike there is a general sense of despair and some pessimism about wherewe are. You made reference to the Tower of Babel and we all know howthat ends. So Im wondering what you think happens from now on? I hateto say it. Whats the future is such a clich question, but where do you see

the conservative movement going, where do you see our politics goingwhen reason will win, but these people dont listen to reason and itsscorned people like you who are reasonable?

Mr. Sullivan: Yeah, Im completely an anathema. You know, youhave a two-term governor of Utah reelected with 84 percent of the votewho has foreign policy experience with our most important rival power,really interesting ideas on tax reforms, who is polling at one percent and amotivational speaker who has a pa ern of serially harassing women as the

front runner, or was the front runner until, I dont know, be er check yourwatch. Or we have this preposterous man, Newt Gingrich. I think thingscan get worse before it gets be er. I think the only way they will learn is by being defeated soundly.

I hope that would happen sooner, but unfortunately there was somesort of cultural panic and we may have to wait some time. But look, thedebt is inevitable. Either we will go under or we will take measures to stopit. The question is whether we will be proud of ourselves for waiting. Andthats also what is happening in Europe. Its not a ma er of if, its a ma erof when. So in other words, in all politics, there are simply practical thingsto be done. And we hope they are done. Its muddling through. There is noend point. Im an Oakesho ian. There is just now. (Applause)

Mr. Jones: Thank you very much, Andrew. Tomorrow morning on thetop of the Taubman Building at 9:00 oclock we will have a panel, including both Thomas Frank and Andrew Sullivan and some other distinguishedcommentators and analysts who will discuss the things that were saidtonight. We encourage you to come. We hope to see you there. Thank you

very much. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you, Andrew. This was extraordi-nary. (Applause)


32/66

32 T - A T H. W L


33/66

33T - A T H. W L

T T H. W SN b 18, 2011

Mr. Jones: Good morning. Welcome to you all and we are very gladto have you this morning with us. Andrew will join us. He told me that hemight be a li le bit late, but he will be joining us. But I can tell you that wehave a very distinguished panel to respond to what we heard last night.

I want to begin by introducing our panel brie y and then we will start.The frame for this gathering is what happened last night, but its certainlynot limited to that and we will be roaming where interest in conversationtakes us and we will then open the oor to all of you to be able to take partin the conversation.

On the right is Tad Devine, who is an IOP Fellow here at the KennedySchool. He has, since 1993, been a media consultant. The thing that makeshim so particularly interesting is that he has not only done it in the UnitedStates but he has had extensive experience abroad as well, and he has beendoing strategic advice for national campaigns in Europe and the MiddleEast and elsewhere.

Next to him is Jill Lepore, the David Woods Kemper Professor ofAmerican History at Harvard and the Chair of Harvards History and Lit-

erature Program. She is a contributing writer to The New Yorker. Her 2010 book, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Partys Revolution and the Ba le over American History , put her in the sweet spot between American history andabsolutely contemporary events, I think.

To my right, your left, is of course Thomas Frank, who is the NyhanPrize winner and who had provocative things to say last night and who Ipromised I would give the rst shot at responding to the same question Iasked Andrew last night about where he sees the two of them overlapping

and where he sees them di ering. I very much look forward to hearingyour thought on that.Next to him is Nia-Malika Henderson, she prefers just Nia. She is a

national political reporter for The Washington Post and covers the WhiteHouse, a graduate of Duke and Yale, and she wrote about education andrace in the White House for Politico before joining The Washington Post .

And, nally, our Shorenstein Fellow, Mark McKinnon. Mark, in anodd way, reminds me a li le bit of Andrew. He is someone who followshis conscience and his political ideology, which is not easy to characterize.He is a conservative, he has worked for George W. Bush, but he declinedto continue working for John McCain, even though he had been in JohnMcCains campaign, because he declined to work against Barack Obamaonce he was the nominee.


34/66

34 T - A T H. W L

The thing that he is especially focused on now, however, is nominationof a third party candidate that would be on the ballot in all 50 states, andit is something that makes some people skeptical and makes some peopleenthralled, but he comes at this particular election season from a di erentperspective than perhaps any of the rest of the people on this panel.

Thomas, please talk just brie y about where you and Andrew overlapand di er and how you see that.

Mr. Frank: I was struck by something that Andrew said, that he refersto himself as a conservative, even though he wants nothing to do with theRepublican Party and he thinks that its gone in this very radical direction.And I remember back in the, what, early 2000s I was writing Whats the Ma er with Kansas? and someone said to me, Why do you refer to themas conservatives? They are not, they are radicals. They even use this term

to describe themselves. Paul Weyrich said we arent conservatives, we areradicals trying to overturn the existing order.

I also liked the way we were talking about Dwight D. Eisenhower lastnight, a conservative accepts that things like Social Security are here tostay, that the New Deal in fact has happened, its not going to be reversed.

But the people that I describe or that I write about all the time aredetermined to overturn these things and, to go further than that. I alsosometimes think that I have a conservative temperament, and this sounds

very strange, if youve read what Ive wri en because Im always regardedas the guy thats outside the consensus, right? Im way o to the left. Myviews are totally unacceptable but, at the end of the day, when I was writ-ing the book about Kansas, for example, I would drive around in thosetowns. I loved that place, I love those people, I dont want their world to bedestroyed.

And you wonder when Im describing that sort of landscape of desola-tion and futility and all the sort of T.S. Eliot kind of things out there in theMidwest, and whether its Kansas or whether its the south side of Chi-cago, of whether its Cleveland, or all over America there are places likethat today. You ask yourself what did this to these people? What are theforces that did this to these people? And its not government.

The answer is the market, this sort of golden god that we have builtfor ourselves and that we bow down and worship and whose every dictatewe obey and who weve convinced ourselves is all seeing and all powerfuland all wise but that continues to do these dreadful things to people and tocities. So thats where my economic views come from I dont really like

the word conservative anymore but for a concern for these people andfor their way of life, not out of some determination to smash America orsome crazy thing like that.


35/66

35T - A T H. W L

Mr. Jones: Well, pardon me if Im imagining something, but it seemsto me that you and Andrew actually view things not exactly the same butvery similarly and you come at it from a sort of humanistic kind of per-spective. I know his is informed by his Catholicism, but his de nition of aconservative is Barack Obama, as you heard him say last night, and whenhe calls himself a conservative

Mr. Frank: Its surprising.Mr. Jones: he means that hes a Barack Obamaconservative.Mr. Frank: Well, I was a big fan of Obama, he was my state senator

when I lived in Chicago and, like everybody else in Hyde Park, I thoughthe was a great man. I was very happy to vote for him. I mean I couldnt believe that my state senator was running for president and that he wonwas an extraordinary thing. And I was very happy to vote for him.

Mr. Jones: You part company with Andrew on Obama, I take it.Mr. Frank: Well no, no, no. When Andrew was talking about people

who are disillusioned with Obama, Im one of those people. Im sure it willlook di erent 20 years from now. Well look back at the Obama years andthink that it was a golden age. But he came into o ce in 2008 with suchhigh expectations and people expected so much of him that its almostimpossible for him to have lived up to that.

But, on the other hand, he also could have done whatever he wanted in

2008. He had a huge majority in both houses of Congress, the global econ-omy was prostrate. He could have done whatever he wanted and insteadhe chose to continue the Bush administrations course on the essential eco-nomic ma ers, and I think that was a terrible mistake.

Mr. Jones: Well, let me broaden this conversation. I would like to callon Jill rst to respond to what she heard last night.

Ms. Lepore: Sure, thanks very much. I feel a li le odd speaking to theempty chair. (Laughter)

I come from the college and we dont chat over in the Yard, we onlyread, so I wrote something out, but it really is a square response to theremarks last night, so I feel a li le awkward, but we can conjure Andrewhere.

I was quite struck, as I think we all probably were, with my sense ofgratitude for the judgment and discernment and gravity and eloquence ofthe remarks that we heard last night. I want to take issue largely with thisde nition of conservatism because I found that to be imprecise and I thinkwe could all bene t from interrogating that a li le bit further. I do not

recognize the Republican Party as a conservative force in society, Mr. Sul-livan said in framing his remarks. I agree and I think many of us probablyagree with that statement.


36/66

36 T - A T H. W L

I wonder though if we ought not to inquire whether Mr. Sullivansde nition of conservatism isnt rather too capacious to carry the meaningthat he places upon it. So, to consider very brie y three elements of hisde nition which I jo ed down as I was following his speech, Conserva -tism concerns the tragedy of the human condition, Mr. Sullivan said. Isthat not true of all systems of belief? Does that qualify in any respect as ade nition? Conservatives believe that social science is an oxymoron, so domost academics I know.

Conservatism, Mr. Sullivan tells us, involves doubt about all sys-tems of knowledge. Is that conservatism or is that skepticism? In Ameri-

can political culture today, the greatestact of political courage is moderation. Mr.Sullivan was introduced to us as fearlessly

opinionated, as I think Thomas Frank wasas well, and neither of these people areanswerable to their introductions, whichwere gracious and generous of course, but

I nd fearless opionability a sort of curious commendation in this age.Sure fearlessness is to be admired, but is being opinionated in itself

worthy of admiration? We live in an era of excess, a preposterous, greedy,exuberant excess of opinion. Most of that opinion is unsupported by evi-

dence or argument. A great deal of it is hostile and in ammatory, deliber -ately so, in part because American politics has been so entirely unhinged by a set of morally troubling and cynically manipulated ideas about the

bodies of women and the lives ofchildren.

Vicious, Mr. Sullivan says,describing our political rhetoric and Iagree. I nd much of it also to be gro -tesque, but Im also constantly takenaback, especially given how much ofour politics hinges on what happensinside of womens bodies, by howentirely absent women are from mostpolitical debate in the United States.In 2010, 95 percent of all books aboutAmerican politics published in this

country were wri en by men, as were nearly 90 percent of the reviews of

those books. That is a very narrow conversation.Nationally, more than 80 percent of all op-eds published in American

newspapers are wri en by men and last night, of course, of all the dozens

...American politicshas been so entirelyunhinged by a set of

morally troubling andcynically manipulatedideas about the bodies ofwomen and the lives of

children.

...is being opinionated

in itself worthy ofadmiration?


37/66

37T - A T H. W L

of people who lined up to ask questions, excellent, thoughtful questions,only one woman stood up in that room, and yet none of us question that.

This gets me to the last question I would like to raise. As a Catholic,I found myself quite moved by Mr. Sullivans remarks about how funda-mentalism has replaced faith. I won-dered though whether there ought not be a place in our shared set of concernsabout the world in which we live orworry or even alarm about the replace-ment of knowledge with opinion. Inanswer to a question from the audiencemade with the intention of encouraginga young, earnest, journalist, Mr. Sulli-

van celebrated what he called a revivalof citizen journalism. The web is not zero sum, he said. But I tally in thelist of losses in the transition from the age of print to the digital age thesethings.

No one reports on the State House anymore, as Thomas Frankremarked. Long-form investigative journalism is nearly dead. If women, aspolitical writers, are nearly absent from the world of books and newspa-pers, they are all but silent in the political blogosphere. Metrics are hard to

come by, but many of you will have remembered the report that more than85 percent of contributors to Wikipedia are men. Women do not post.And, nally, we have also witnessed in the span of a dozen years the

death of the editor, a cultural role whose invention was one of the greatestaccomplishments of the Renaissance and is responsible for much of whathas made liberal democracy and the freedoms we enjoy possible. Onlyconservatism can rescue our society and our world, Mr. Sullivan argued. Ireason di erently and I place my fearless faith elsewhere.

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Jill, for that very thoughtful response. Nia,let me ask you to respond not only to or give your thoughts about lastnight but to what you just heard from Jill, as a woman in a journalisticinstitution.

Ms. Henderson: Thanks. Well, I wish I had something typed out, I donot. I didnt go to Harvard and I dont hang around here. (Laughter)

But I did notice, I will say, Jill, as I sat in the audience last night, thelack of diversity in terms of race and gender and certainly notice that allthe time as I report on the White House and on the campaign. When Im at

a Tea Party rally, I especially notice it. And it obviously does lead to a dif-ferent sort of conversation, the fact that there are mainly white men whoare in this conversation. I think for me personally, I am often asked whatdoes it mean to be a black woman covering these sorts of things and Im

If women, as politicalwriters, are nearly

absent from the world ofbooks and newspapers,they are all but silent in

the political blogosphere.


38/66

38 T - A T H. W L

always struck by the fact that no one ever asks a white man what its like tocover these sorts of things, as if white men dont have race and gender.

In terms of what Andrew said last night, this whole idea of conser-vatism in crisis, I certainly see it every day in terms of covering this cam-paign, covering this election, this cast of characters that has cropped up aspresidential candidates, as they struggle with some of the bedrock ideasof conservatism. This idea of being hawkish, you see Ron Paul down inSouth Carolina ge ing loud cheers when he is talking about an isolationistapproach to Americas foreign policy. You see Herman Cain, who doesntseem to know a lot about foreign policy, doing so well in the polls.

And Mi Romney is holding fast at23 percent. I dont know if thats a ooror a ceiling, but it looks like he is the

inevitable choice in this campaign andif he does win, some people predict itwould be in many ways the end of theTea Party because he is such a moderateguy. So I thought it was a fascinatingtalk, very insightful. I dont think thatmost people would agree that BarackObama is a conservative. I think some

liberals might agree with that and are certainly upset with the way he hashandled the approach to the debt ceiling, the approach to Bush tax cuts, but thats all.

Mr. Jones: Okay, thank you. Mark, what did you hear last night?Mr. McKinnon: Well, rst of all, let me echo what Jill said, which was

last night, between Thomas and Andrew, a lot of gravity, judgment andeloquence. And I turned to my wife Annie afterwards and she said, wow,what a profound evening, and she said you are doing a panel with thoseguys tomorrow, right? And I said yeah and she said dont talk much.(Laughter)

So Im going to follow that instruction. But the rst thing, I of coursehad great sympathy for Andrew in the sense that I often feel pre y lonely,as a Republican, and it was nice to have some company out there withAndrew because we share a lot of the same philosophy and thoughts. Andso I have, like a lot of people in my life, a political sort of arc I started oas an anarchist trying to abolish student government at the University ofTexas, and then worked for years as a Democrat and then evolved.

There were only two parties in Texas at the time, you were either aDemocrat or a conservative Democrat, and the Republican Party grew andas I grew and became more conservative, I became a Republican, workedfor George W. Bush. I was a racted initially by the whole idea of compas -

...no one ever asks a

white man what its liketo cover these sorts ofthings, as if white men

dont have race andgender.


39/66

39T - A T H. W L

sionate conservatism and his governorship at the time and worked in avery bipartisan fashion. And so I have worked through a number of means,in writing and activism and NGOs, trying to encourage the RepublicanParty to enforce what I think are idealsthat have been long abandoned, thatAndrew touched on a lot of last night,and its discouraging.

I mean its hard and its di cult tosee where I think the party is headedand where the primaries have taken us,the thin quality of the eld of candi -dates, and I wish a lot of other peoplehad run. And, by the way, I think that

our system is largely broken, whichcreates a lot of frustration, but Im notgiving up and Im continuing to try to

nd ways to kick the shins of the system. And so Im now coming backto my anarchist phase, making a full 360. And Im very interested in thisAmericans Elect idea, which is an alternative nominating process, which Ithink more than anything just re-imagines democracy.

When the smoke clears from the Republican primaries, everybody

is going to be looking around and they are going to go oh, Romney andObama? Yawn. And theyll say isnt there something else? And the answeris going to be yes, there is going to be this very--

Mr. Jones: Mark, explain just in shorthand.Mr. McKinnon: Yeah. The shorthand on this is that there is an organi-

zation called Americans Elect which is taking a very innovative and uniqueapproach to an alternative nominating process in the sense that they said,we dont have a candidate but the impediment to any kind of alternativecandidacy has always been ballot access and money, and money is a fea-ture of the rst. You have to have money to get on the ballot because theparties have made it impossibly di cult and expensive to get on the ballot.

So these folks sort of sat down and said if we could re-imagine democ-racy, how would we do it? We are trying to encourage good people toaddress the profound challenges that we have and good people arent step-ping up because of the nature of the primaries and the nature of the politi-cal process. How would we do it di erently? Well, we would eliminate theprimaries, we would use technology. We would create a unity ticket so that

you would have a Republican and a Democrat or a Democrat and Republi-can as a unity ticket to address the hyper-partisanship, which most Ameri-cans are really hungry for.

I think that our systemis largely broken,

which creates a lotof frustration, but Imnot giving up and Im

continuing to try to ndways to kick the shins of

the system.


40/66

40 T - A T H. W L

And all you have to do to be a delegate is sign up on the Internet andall you have to do to vote is be a delegate, and you can nominate anybodyyou want to. And you go to americanselect.org and theres a lot of detailabout this. And so of course theres all the typical questions that I hear,which is it cant happen, its never happened before, heres why, heres thechallenges. And I say, yeah, I get it, its the same thing I heard, were nevergoing to elect an African American president.

Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean its not goingto happen. And so its a very interesting, innovative idea at a time whenpeople are very unhappy with the status quo. And the logical questionis who is going to run? I dont know the answer to that yet, but Im quitecertain that when you eliminate having to go through the primaries andyou dont have to spend millions of dollars to get on the ballot and you can

do it for free, its already done for you, I assure you that some interestingpeople in this country that are either in o ce, have been in o ce before orin the private sector, they are going to step up and go through this Ameri-cans Elect process.

Mr. Jones: Tom, let me ask you. When you hear this, how do you thinkthis will play in Kansas, one, in terms of the process of nominating? Andthen lets assume for the moment that there is a credible candidate thatemerges from Americans Elect, how will your Kansas react to that?

Mr. Frank: Well, its funny that you turned to me and to Kansas because Kansas is known for its dalliance, its irtation with third party

movements in the 19th century. And I wonder, Mark you mentionedtwo big obstacles to third parties. You said how much it costs to get on the ballot and what was the other one you said?

Mr. McKinnon: Money. Well, just ge ing on the ballot and then themoney.

Mr. Frank: Right, but theres another one that you need to considerand that is that after Populism, the last great third party movement, forthose of you who dont know, was this third party movement all over theMidwest and the South and it actually managed to elect people from localo cials to U.S. senators. They ran people for president, they didnt do aswell at that level, but it looked scary. They were growing and growing andgrowing and Populism sort of petered out after 1896 and, after it did, justabout every state where it had been strong passed laws to make their strat-egies illegal.

Speci cally what they used to do is called fusion. Kansas has always

been pre y much a one party state where the one party is the Republicans,and the Populists would fuse with the Democrats, who were a tiny, li leparty, and so they would nominate somebody and the Democrats would


41/66

41T - A T H. W L

nominate the same guy, and then the person would win that way. Theywould be listed on the ballot twice, both as a Populist and as a Democrat.

And in the South, where the Democrats were the traditional party,the Populists fused with the Republicans. And this was very e ective andits now illegal all over America. And the thing is if you were to changethose laws, and the two parties wont let you, of course I mean theres areason we havent had third party movements again.

And it would be really interesting, if you were able to overturn thoselaws all over America and, hell, it would not be interesting, it would befantastic. It would be Americans springtime or something like that. (Laughter)

If we could actually have a rangeof candidates with all sorts of di erent

views, it would be fantastic, so go get`em, yeah. (Laughter)

Mr. Jones: Tad, whats your takeon last night? And, also, if you would,what is your take on the idea of Ameri-cans Elect?

Mr. Devine: Great, thank you. WellI wrote down my thoughts, like Jill, but not as eloquent, Im afraid but,

nevertheless, I put some thought into it. First let me say that I agree, I wishAndrew were here so he could hear how much I agree with what he hadto say last night. I dont know if that makes me a conservative. Im not, atleast as I understand what a conservative is. First, I agree the debt crisis isone of the great challenges that we have to confront today and I agree withwhat Andrew said, that in order to confront it, both sides have to take a hit.I think thats the only answer.

I agree that the potential con ict between Iran and Israel over Iransnuclear program is a huge threat to security, not just in the Middle East,in the world, although I dont know if I agree with what he said aboutmutually assured destruction being something that in fact could maintainsecurity there. I think its a very di erent place in a di erent age today. Iagree that, as Andrew said last night, we can not impose democracy on acountry or a culture, that it has to come from within and not be imposedfrom without.

I agree with many of the remarks that he made last night about Presi-dent Obama, that he has the right temperament, the right judgment and

that its vital that he be reelected, and I certainly support that. And I alsoagree with what he said last night that President Obama has faced what hecalled a repulsive radical and obstructionist opposition. I think thats abso-lutely dead on. I dont know if I agree with his assertion that and maybe

If we could actuallyhave a range of

candidates with allsorts of different

views, it would befantastic...


42/66

42 T - A T H. W L

this is why Im not a conservative and I am who I am I dont know if Iagree with his assertion that the Supreme Court denied the ability of thecountry to make decisions on their own on a deep, moral issue when theSupreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. I think the Supreme Court was correctwhen they decided that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortionand I think the formula articulated in that decision, I remember reading itmany years ago as a young law student, I thought was the right balance.The approach to a trimester formula was the right balance to a very di -cult problem.

And I agree with what Andrew has said, that the time has come to enddiscrimination against people in this country on the basis of their sexualorientation, when it comes to the issue of marriage. And I for one would

be very happy if the Supreme Court

decided that the equal protection clauseof the Constitution should apply in thatinstance as well. I think its perfectlyappropriate and maybe that kind of judicial activism is why Im not a con-servative, Im a liberal.

And, nally, I have to say that Iagree with Andrew that we, as a nation,

are too devoted to a uence and mate -rialism. And I can tell you, and I thinkI heard this from Jill, as a practicing Roman Catholic myself, I share manyof the sentiments about my church and its profound problems. So I agreewith much of what he and also what Thomas said last night. I very muchenjoyed their comments and their insights and agree with many of theirconclusions.

And as to third party and Americans Elect, I will tell you that I havenever seen a time in the 31 years that Ive worked on political campaignsthat America is more ready to move out of the two party system. The dis-satisfaction that is expressed with the direction of the country, the pro-found dissatisfaction, I think I counted something like 35 national pollssince the middle of the summer where the wrong track is net 50 to 70points higher than the right track. It was unbelievable.

I see this when I go to Bolivia and Colombia and Honduras and thirdworld countries where people live in abject and dire poverty. You canunderstand why they feel their country is going in the wrong direction.

But to see it in the United States of America, I think it presents a tremen-dous opening. And last year where here in New England I worked ontwo campaigns for governor, one in Rhode Island for Linc Chafee, who Iworked against in 2006 when he was a Republican but worked for when he

...I have never seen atime in the 31 years thatIve worked on politicalcampaigns that Americais more ready to move

out of the two partysystem.


43/66

43T - A T H. W L

became an Independent, when he was elected governor, and the other veryremarkable campaign for Eliot Cutler, who was unknown, never ran foro ce and came within a couple of thousand votes of being elected gover -nor of Maine.

It showed me that there is a tremendous opening for candidatesoutside the structure of a two party system to step forward. Linc Chafeeannounced for governor by saying he was going to raise taxes. Eliot Cutlermade it clear to everybody that there were no easy solutions to problems but he was willing to take them on. That really cut through and in a threeway race you can win with 35, 36, 37 percent of the vote, so I think there isa real opening and I think we may see it.

Mr. Jones: We are very fortunate to have E.J. Dionne with us thismorning. E.J. is a member of the Shorenstein Centers Advisory Board and

to have him at this table is a great pleasure and honor and, E.J., I wouldlike to get your response to what you have heard.

Mr. Dionne: Thank you, although I feel like after Jills wonderfulpresentation, Im just adding to the problem. Im a guy, I write books andop-eds. (Laughter)

Mr. Dionne: And Im speakingup. I just want to say rst on Jill, its areal honor to be with you. Everybody

should read The Whites of Their Eyes butif you read nothing else in that book,you should go to the end where Jill talksabout the problems with originalismand points out that in the Revolution-ary Era, at the time the Constitutionwas wri en, where she couldnt vote, she probably wouldnt have a publicvoice, she wouldnt be writing books, and also she would be wearing somekind of clothing that she wonderfully described, I cant remember, and itsa beautiful paragraph that I think is the best skewering of originalism Iveever read, so its a real honor to be here.

Ill skip Ame

andrew sullivan, theodore h. white lecture (2011)

Documents