Speaker 1: My other favorite Churchill story is when his great granddaughter,
I think granddaughter ran into the room. This is off
to the war, and he's sitting writing his memoirs and
she runs into You may know this. She runs into
the room and she sees him sitting there, and she's gosped.
Speaker 2: She stops, shees, She goes.
Speaker 1: Great Granddad, is it true that you're the greatest man
in the world? And he says, yes, Now fuck off.
Speaker 3: Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask
what you can do for your country. Mister gorbachav tear
down this wall. It's the Ricochet podcast number seven hundred
and forty one. James Lilax is off today, but I
am joined by Peter Robinson and Charles C. W. Cook
and our special guest, Christopher Scalia. Let's have ourselves a podcast.
Speaker 4: The gleaming marvels of Ria and Abu Dhabi were not
created by the show called nation builders, neo cons or
liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of
dollars failing. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East
has been brought by the people of the region themselves,
the people that are right here, the people that have
lived here all their lives.
Speaker 3: Welcome everybody to episode seven forty one of the Ricochet podcast.
James is off today I'll be your host, Steve Hayward,
joined us always by Charles C. W. Cook, and today
a stranger is filling the third slot. It's a guy
named Peter Robinson. Hi, Peter, how are you? Hi?
Speaker 5: Steve? I barely remember myself right what? We've got a
lot to do in.
Speaker 3: Our special guest today will be Christopher Scalia with a
terrific new book on novels that we've been neglecting. But
before we get to Christopher, quickly, Peter, and I mean
very quickly, because this could be the whole show. But
give me your just initial impressions of the new Pope.
Speaker 5: The Pope I listen, I mean I like him. Yeah, yeah, No,
I do too. I'm just trying to explain that I
feel myself in the position of a dog rescued from
the pound that was grievously beaten by its former owner.
It is going to be a while before I unclench
and give my full trust to a new master. That's
the kind of beaten dog I am. After twelve years
of Pope Francis, now, I'm sure there will be some.
And I speak of him with respect because he is
the pope, was the pope. And however, Pope Leo is just.
He seems to be a man of good sense, well spoken,
loves the church, and loves the church in every particular
of its history. So he speaks beautiful Latin, he sings
the Regina Shelley in front of the Every bit of
this is just a relief and an inspiration to a
Catholic such me. So I truly I love the man.
I love the man right down to his brothers, who
are moordinary Americans, just right, the sense of normalcy. Now,
of course, the left will be outraged because one of
the brothers is pro Trump. I remind the left that
Trump won the popular vote last time. You can be
a normal American and pro Trump. Just the sense of
a kind of normal love of the church, love of country,
love of this country. Not however, that he hasn't dedicated
almost all his life to the poor in Peru. But
I so far I love him. I find myself my
heart going out to him.
Speaker 3: Right. All right, Well, let's go from the sacred to
the mundane. I'll put it that way. Charles, I got
up early yesterday out here on the left coast to
listen to the oral argument in the Supreme Court. Yeah, wow,
the birthright citizenship. Although really the case is about whether
district courts can do these nationwide injunctions. So I listened
to the whole thing and have my thoughts. But did
you get a chance to listen or review at Charles?
Speaker 6: I did?
Speaker 1: I have thoughts on both of those? Which do you
want either describe it whoever you like?
Speaker 5: Charles? Is this wonderful intellectual constitutionalist's jukebox you put in
a quarter rights your button? Go ahead, right?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 1: I wish that this case was not also about national injunctions,
because I think they'd be a better vehicle for that,
and also it may get in the way of the
on the merits decision. I have very complicated thoughts about
national induction, Steve. I think that ultimately the problem we
have with judges who come in and usurp the role
of the other branches is that the judges are hacks,
not that national injunctions exist, because there are many circumstances
in which it makes sense to have national injunctions.
Speaker 2: I think the problem is we have a lot of
bad judges on the.
Speaker 1: Question of birthright citizenship. It's funny. I think Trump will
lose this if it's decided. I am less persuaded than
I was that it is easy. I thought last year
i'd say.
Speaker 5: Well, yes, that's a profound point.
Speaker 1: Actually, yeah, one kim ark is settled law. The originalist
meaning is obvious. I still think that's probably true on balance.
I certainly think that there would be five votes for
that position, three of the Democrat appointed judges, and then
probably Robertson Kavanaugh on precedent inertia grounds. But I am
less sure than I was. I haven't got to that
because of yesterday's or all arguments. I've got to that
slowly over time. Randy Mannett raised some questions for me.
Ilan Werman raised some questions for me. I read a
few of the Amikast briefs. I've read some other people
I respect who have sown doubt in my mind. So
this one, actually, I think is more difficult than I
had thought it was.
Speaker 3: You no, My impression it was that they're going to
pun completely on the birthright citizenship issue, because it seemed
like about ninety five percent rough estimate of the argument
was really concentrated on the nationwide injunction question. And I
thought Justice Kagan gave away the whole game when she said,
with some indignance in the way she put the question
to one of the Trump attorneys Justice Department attorneys, I
can't believe you're bringing this case to us. And the
subtext was you're trying to sheehorn in birthright citizenship on
something that even I admit it's problematic, which is district
judges giving nationwide injunctions. And then the second thing was
the other thing of the weakness of I think the
Democratic justices, it's clear they hate what's going on on
both levels. I think they like activist judges doing nationwide injunctions.
But the Trump administration plan or initial argument was, well, look,
the decision should be bound to just the parties of
the case, which was you know Lincoln's view about dred Scott,
by the way, so not a novel or exotic position, correct,
And the Trump attorneys responded sensibly, well, look, you could
have a class action suit brought to federal district court
and that could give a broader injunction to a whole
class of people. And then there were but then the
comeback from the liberal justices was, well, what if the
class isn't certified, are you really telling me you'd have
to go one person at a time through the federal
courts to vindicate their citizenship or vindicate their eligibility for
benefits and other rights that come from citizenship. And so
you could tell that. I think that there's and I
think even Keigan's probably thinks that nationwide adjunctions are problematic
at the very least. But it was clear that he
really hates it that it's tied up with the birthright
citizenship issue.
Speaker 5: We have a guest joining us soon, so but may
I ask a question of both of you. I did
not listen to all the oral arguments, and I certainly
didn't read any of the meek as briefs the way
Charlie did. But I listened to bits and pieces of
it as it floated through my feed yesterday. And here's
my question on national injunctions. I try to put myself
in the mind of John Roberts, Chief Justice John Roberts. Oh,
and we've seen over and over again, and I think
it's true of him. By the way, just full disclosure,
I've known the man for forty years. We worked together
in the Reagan white House's young men, and I like
him a lot, which is not to say that I
get my head around all of his jurisprudence. However, he
really is an institutionalist there. He really does take seriously
holding it all together. And now we come with an argument.
And the argument really it's interesting for Justice Thomas and
Justice Alito as well, because it's not a question where
how do you apply original meaning to the question of
national injunctions. You've got six more than six hundred district
court judges who have the power to impose national injunctions.
Every single one of them is simply a judge who
has the ability to stand up to the President of
the United States, elected by the entire country, and in
many circumstances, to the Congress of the United States, to
defy on his own bat Article one an Article two
of the Constitution. And it doesn't work. It's almost a
purely institutional argument. The situation is untenable. Now, mister Chief Justice,
what do you do with it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good question. You know what I want
to do, Peter, I actually want to pose that question
to our guest, who is ready to join us in
a moment he may not want the question, and you'll
see why. I want to tell you who it is.
Our guest is here. It is Christopher Scalia, a senior
fellow in the Social Cultural and Constitutional Studies at the
American Enterprise Institute, formerly a professor of English at the
University of Virginia's College at WISE, and he has a
brand new book out that he's here to talk about.
But Chris, you'll get used to a book tour interviews
where the interviewer wants to ask you about something aside
from your book. But I promise we will do the book.
The book is called Thirteen Novels Conservatives will love but
probably haven't read. It's going to be out here next week. Chris, welcome,
glad to have you. I've been waiting with great anticipation
for this book.
Speaker 6: Thank you, guys. It's great to be back on the
podcast and I'm looking forward to talking to you all.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay, well just briefly. I mean, because I think listeners,
because of who you are in your name, they're going
to know if you have an opinion about the Supreme
Court argument this week on injunctions and birthright citizenship. And
if you don't, that's fine because you are a professor
of English and not of the law. But since we
have you, I have to ask.
Speaker 6: I admit I have not been following it very closely
because I've been preoccupied with book obligations and opportunities. So
it's obviously an important issue, and I agree with the
general conservative consensus that these universal injunctions are becoming a
serious problem and we need to figure out what the
hell is going on with them, as President Trump would say,
and they do seem novel. So my own uneducated opinion
on the matter is that the judges making these injunctions,
handing down these injunctions are overstepping their bounds. But I
don't have a ton of confidence in that opinion, And
based on a little bit I heard about of the
arguments yesterday, I really don't know what's going to happen
with the birthright citizenship decision. But obviously I'm not certain,
and you can't tell for sure from oral arguments, but
it does look like the administration has an uphill battle there.
Speaker 5: Enough of this, Christopher Scullia, I have known you since
you were a pipsqueak. Now Here you come, now here
you come, all eloquent, informed, speaking judiciously. Furthermore, you've written
a book, and to my intense irritation, it's a very
very good book. Here's the threshold question. In an age
in which you know, as the father of four, nobody reads,
kids are not being raised to read. Here you come
saying we'll come to some of the particular novels in
a moment. But here you come saying reading is important.
And furthermore, this disused genre, this old form, the novel,
really matters. It can say tremendously important things to us.
It can help us think through why we're conservatives. It
can help us approach life in a healthy and more
intelligent way. What the hell are you talking about?
Speaker 6: You are unfortunately correct that people are not reading much
of anything anymore, apart from their phones, I guess, and
that's been going on for a long time, but it
it is getting worse. I won't get into the numbers,
but one alarming statistic is that in the nineteen eighties,
young people were the most likely to read a lot,
and now young people are just behind the very old
in rates of reading as of just a couple of
years ago. And no doubt that has a lot to
do with the many, many distractions that young people have
to choose from. What I do in the introduction to
my book is make the case for reading, in particular
for reading fiction. I have nothing against poetry, but novels
are what this book is about, and fiction has particular
merits that other type of types of books do not have.
History books obviously are important, but I know, especially conservatives
love reading history and biography, especially conservative men. But novels
give us knowledge in a way that those books do not,
and they also offer beauty in a way that history
books rarely do. And I think conservatives especially should be
interested in the novel as a form because it is
among the greatest art forms of Western civilization. It's a
relatively new form. It's only, you know, a few centuries old,
but some of our yeah, that's right, it's basically a
new kid on the block. But it's uh. Some of
the greatest thinkers and writers of our civilization have expressed
their ideas and written in this form, and we need
to be aware of it. We need to we need
to remember and maintain our ability to engage with novels,
because once we lose that ability, I mean, you're not
born with it. It takes some practice to appreciate a novel.
It is much easier to scroll through TikTok or whatever.
But if we lose that, we're cutting ourselves off from
a great literary tradition.
Speaker 5: Okay, you give me about three sentences. I'm going to
hit you with some of the novels that you discuss here,
and at some point, at any point, Steve Hayward and
Charlie Cook are going to jump in to take issue
with you or ask why you left this or that
novel off the list. But let's begin with one that
I myself always just loved Rossellus Samuel Johnson. Yeah, what's
the point of it? When? What's the story? And what's
the points? According to Scalia.
Speaker 6: Samuel Johnson Rashalis, technically not a novel. I cheat a
little bit here. It's an Oriental tale, but nobody's going
to care enough to raise a big fuss about that.
Seventeen fifty nine. It is a tale of a young
man who is restless. The pun on his name suggests
that he is. He has a great life. He's a
prince and he lives in a kingdom. Everything is given
to him, but he doesn't have to work. He doesn't
have to do anything, and his experience and knowledge is
are so limited. He wants to go out and learn
more about the world. And what he learns is that
life is full of disappointment, not because it's unfair or
anything like that, but once you reach what once you
reach your goals, you immediately want to do something else.
There's an innate restlessness about us. And the novel is
also about a very conservative idea of universal human nature,
human behaviors and ideas and values that transcend time and place,
and what I do in my chapters, I connect a
lot of what Johnson wrote to what the Founders wrote.
Even though Johnson was not a fan of the American Revolution,
a lot of their Enlightenment ideals overlap.
Speaker 5: Tell us about the astronomer.
Speaker 6: Oh, the astronomer is somebody who gets so he's a
character in this book who gets so absorbed in basically
in his one bit of knowledge, impressive knowledge that it
is that it deforms his mind. And it's a really
important lesson that any really any expertise deforms the mind.
I think Nietzsche said that I should have quoted that,
And so they have to kind of rescue him and
bring he believes he has all sorts of powers he
doesn't have, so they have to dissuade him.
Speaker 5: I read Rosalus because it was assigned I read Rossellus
in college. It is I'm so delighted that you started
with it, because it is for young men particularly. Leave
I leave the brick bets from the women to you,
although there will come to that in a moment. But
the astronomer seems at first to young Rossellus like though
he has finally found a wise man, yes, a man
who studies that. And then gradually as he spends time,
as you read through the work, it becomes clear that
the astronomer believes that he's not merely observing the moon rise,
that he is causing it, that all the movements of
the cosmos have come to depend upon him. And I
have to say I have found that as I've gone
through life, I have found that particular touch of insanity
in one otherwise wise sane, accomplished person after or another.
It's profound. Okay, now we come to.
Speaker 6: You described that much better than I did, Peter. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Can I bit in Peter for a minute, because of course,
see well, I think we got to set a broader
scene for the listeners first before we get in some
particular novels. I mean, we can do each one of
these for an hour each almost. But put this way, Chris.
When I saw that you were working on this book,
and I've been looking forward to this, by the way,
so I'm glad now to have it, and I saw
the title, it was thirteen novels. Oh gosh, I just
lost it.
Speaker 6: Here, thirteen novels conservatives will love but probably haven't read.
Speaker 3: Right. Well, you know my first assumption as well, it's
probably gonna be the you know, the usual list of
the books that I cherish, you know, orwell, Darkness at
Noon Brights had revisited C. S. Lewis's novels, several others
you can point to, and you make nods to those
in your introduction as you explain how you've done it.
And instead the list we've got as even some of
the prominent authors, you haven't done their most prominent novel So,
for example, you have Georgia Elliott, and of course I say, oh,
Middle March, like one of the five Greatest Things. Instead
you have Daniel Deronda instead. So I'm wondering what your
thought process was picking novels that you might say, are
not the ones that would be the a list that
the rest of us would do if we're asked by say,
National Review, to give the five most important conservative novels
or something.
Speaker 5: Steve says, Steve says, how interesting explained to us how
you took all these offbeat novels by great authors. And
Robinson is thinking, yes, Kaliah, what the hell were you doing?
Speaker 3: No, I didn't think that at all. I thought it
was I thought it was genius. Peter.
Speaker 5: I wish to reserve. I yield the floor back to you, guys,
but I wish to reserve a moment or two to
bitch and moan about selecting Waverley.
Speaker 6: But go ahead, how dare you? How dare you?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 6: I don't know if it's hereditary, but I am a
little bit of a contrarian, and I wanted to. I
wanted readers to encounter books that were off the beaten path,
in large part because conservatives do have this bookshelf that
at their hands that is for the most part, pretty impressive.
But by always going to the same books, and you
mentioned a lot of them, we're we're selling ourselves short.
We're not recognizing the rich literary tradition that that kind
of reinforces or develops or depicts some of the values
and ideas that we hold deer. And these aren't These
novels do not proselytize. These novels are are not didactic.
They are first and foremost great works of literature that
I really believe people of any political persuasion would enjoy.
But conservatives in particular would enjoy these books because they're
surprising and they and they are sympathetic to things that
we hold deer. In the case of Daniel Deronda, Middle
Marches is the better novel by by George Elliott, but
more people are familiar with with Middle March, and I
think Daniel Deronda is underrated. It is her longest novel,
is her last novel, but I find it remarkably accessible
for as long as it is. I think it moves
pretty quickly. And it is it's about duty, It's about
what you owe other people, the sacrifices you make you
have to make to other people. And one of the
main characters, Gwendolen Harleth is a beautiful, funny, very likable
character in some ways, but very selfish, and she learns
the hard way the short the dangers of that selfishness.
But more remarkably, it's a Zionist novel. This novel. George
Elliott was not Jewish, but this novel predates the Zionist
First Zionist Congress by two decades. And it's a case
for a Jewish state that in which the Jewish people
are able basically to secure a national identity in the
way that European peoples are able to do it. So
it's for that reason a very controversial novel. But in
this day and age, perhaps especially relevant.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, Chris, I think that you've got a
wonderful list here. I just sent from Peter's crankiness about
how you picked it. But I'll say listeners that this
is a perfect list to snuggle up in your Cozy
Earth sheets. We all have our checklist for the hours
between nine and five, and getting through it can be hard.
But today's sponsor wants you to have time to prioritize
you outside the work hours. In your five to nine
Cozy Earth, lets your thoughts turn to softness. Cozy Earth's
goal is to help you turn your home into a sanctuary,
a place where you can escape the outside world's demands.
And truly unwind. Life gets hectic and finding comfort in
calm is essential. We need time for relaxation, recharging, and
soaking in a sense of peace. With Cozy Earth, you
can create a space that feels like a personal retreat
where comfort and serenity come together naturally. And one of
the regular users of Cosy Earth is our own Charles CW.
Speaker 5: Cook.
Speaker 1: I use it quite a lot because I sleep in
my bed, and I sleep in my bed as well
as I do in part because of my Cozy Earth sheets.
And the thing is about these sheets is not only
are they very comfortable, but they're very breathable, and that
is extremely important where I am in Florida, because if
you don't have breathable sheets in Florida, you get very
hot and you don't sleep properly. So I enjoy sleeping
on cozy sheets. It's actually very odd to think how
much time I spend with the Cozy Earth sheets, but
that is inevitable.
Speaker 3: Well, we do spend what a third of our lifetimes
asleep in our beds, so it makes sense, right. So
cod the Earth uses only the best fabrics and textiles
that provide the ultimate ingredient for a luxurious softness that
lets you sleep like a baby. And they're not just soft.
Their weave fabric is enhanced for durability that won't pull of.
All Cozy Earth betting products have a one hundred night
sleep trial and ten year warranty. That's how much Cozy
Earth believes in them. So make sleep a priority. Now.
Visit cozyearth dot com and use our exclusive code Ricochet
for up to forty percent off Cozy Earth's best selling sheets, towels,
pajamas and more. That's cozyearth dot com code Ricochet, And
if you get a post purchase survey, tell them you
heard about Cozy Earth right here from the Ricochet Podcast.
And so we thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring this the
Ricochet Podcast. All right, Christopher, we're back. But before I
turn you back to Peter for his completely unfounded criticism,
I'll just say that I enjoyed you saying that one
of the subtexts of the of the book is, as
you put it, read another book, something that's not on
the regular lists. And you said you thought of calling
the book read another book, but the publisher wisely said
that wouldn't attract a lot higher You know, I do
remember from back in what sixties and seventies, was either
Jerry Rubin or Abbie Hoffman or one of those old
yippies had a book that they called Steal this book. Yes, anyway,
so I kind of think read another book was maybe
not such a bad idea.
Speaker 6: Anyway, would have been a more fun title. My title
just tells you exactly you know, exactly what you're getting.
That's the advantage of thirteen novels conservatives will love.
Speaker 5: Thirteen novels conservatives will love. And as I so read
the book, read Christopher's essays about each novel, because the
son of a bitch writes just beautifully. Boy does it
annoy me to see to see somebody coming up behind me,
who's going to who's already in some ways past me?
Boy do I hate? I just stick my leg out,
hoping you'll trip over it somehow or other. The novel
I decided, I resolved, and I recommend this resolution to everybody.
Read Christopher's book, read the essays one by one, and
then take the books that you haven't already read and
read them. And I have to confess in the final chat,
I never I read about but never read The Children
of Men by P. D. James. And then I have
never read anything by leaf Anger Christopher recommends peace like
a River. Nor have I honestly even heard of Christopher
Biha Beja.
Speaker 3: How is that?
Speaker 5: I don't even know.
Speaker 6: I think it's be yea Christopher.
Speaker 5: Beha the index of self destructive arts. So I said, terrific,
I'm going to take this and do what I think
everybody ought to do. Get the book, read the essays,
and then read what you haven't already read. And so
I got to Waverley. What were you thinking? I was thinking,
I addresses all over the place.
Speaker 6: It is the Fun's have the fun.
Speaker 5: It is like watching your life drift by in some
muddy river that just trickles on path. Furthermore, it's nobody's
favorite book by Walter Scott. I can't find a good
edition of it even on Amazon. I can't find a
good edition to a reduced bookstore.
Speaker 6: Go ahead, this is all. This is slander and calumny.
Speaker 5: Okay, So why did you choose every book with knights
and armor specializes in calumny?
Speaker 6: So ivan Hoe is great, and in some way ivan
Hoe is his best structured novel. But Walter Scott's best
novels are the one set in Scotland, one of the
one factor in determining what books to include in this
In my book, all of these book novels you can
find easily in paperback editions, including Waverley uh Penguin World
Classics and Oxford World Penguin Classics. In Oxford World Classics
editions of these are easy to find. Conservatives throughout history,
or at least since Walter Scott was writing have loved
Walter Scott. G. K. Chesterton Russell kirk Kirk called him
basically Burkie, and he did more to spread Edmund Burke's
ideas than Burke himself did. Scott was the most significant
novelist of the Romantic era and arguably the nineteenth century
until Dickens came along. And and yes, I'm not forgetting
about Jane Austen. When George Elliott writes about the Romantic
period in Middle March, to establish the setting, she has
all of her characters talk about Walter Scott because he
was such a big deal. And the digressions, I think
are half the fun. It is difficult because it's he's
writing about a time period we don't know about. He's
writing about the Jacobite Uprising. But it's such an important
novels novel for conservatives to know because a it conveys
this really important point that it's not enough just to
read and not enough to Yeah, not to read widely,
but you need to read with some purpose. You need
to read, and especially if you're young, you need people
to guide you when you read. So nowadays we see
a young person reading something below their grade level or
something we think, oh, at least he's reading. But that's
not that can be dangerous. And Scott is also important
for conservatives. As I said, he's Burkeian and this novel
is I think one of his most Burkian novels because
it shows the d reminds us of the dangers of
revolution and sudden change rather than incremental change and gradual process.
Speaker 5: Oh all right, I'm sold. I'm sold.
Speaker 6: And also it's fun it's funny, Christopher.
Speaker 1: I would like you to account for my failures. I
have read one book.
Speaker 6: Can I guess which book you read? Is it Scoop?
Speaker 2: That's right? That's right?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: Yes, now, yes, now here's the thing.
Speaker 1: I have read everything evil and War, right, Yeah, I
have read I think everything else from George j Elliott
except Daniel there on THEE And then if you put
a bunch of books in front of me by the
same author, I've probably been through those for a whole
bunch of Jane Austen. I read everything Jane Austen wrote,
all well Shakespeare.
Speaker 2: So here's my question.
Speaker 1: And as somebody who's not as we well read as
I would like to be or or could be, but
is nevertheless not a slout, why haven't I read all
the books on this list or more than one of them?
So there's going to be something about these books because
you say in the book conservatives probably haven't read them.
That's a very good guess, at least in my case.
Why haven't they read these ones? Because I recognize a
lot of the authors. I just haven't read these books.
Speaker 6: I think part of it is going back to what
I was saying earlier. We're just conservatives in particular are
stuck in a rut about the same the same handful
of novels. So if you talk to somebody about George Elliott,
it's gonna be about Middle March.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But why, it's my question, Like why is.
Speaker 6: Because because the books you're familiar with are great. There's
It's the point, isn't that those novels are bad, but
they Jane Austen, for example, Jane Austen is obviously excellent. Yeah,
the only thing bad about Jane Austen is that she
distracts us from everybody else who was good at her time,
except for Mary Shelley, and we still read Frankenstein. I
include Walter Scott, as I mentioned, he was very important
and widely read. I also include my Jane Austen like
novel is Evelina by Fanny Bernie Francis. Bernie. Austin loved
her and when you read this novel you'll see why.
You'll see its influence on Jane Austen, especially pride and prejudice.
But we don't talk about it because there are just
over the time. Certain books assume a place in the
cannon that they do deserve, but other books that arguably
also deserve that place get overshadowed.
Speaker 1: But what I'm driving at, and perhaps this is a
difficult question, but is Daniel Deronda a worse book than
Middle March or is it just abtry The Middle marchals
I've read Silas Manner as well, are the ones that
my school encouraged and that people talk about.
Speaker 2: I mean, why is that.
Speaker 6: I think Middle March is a little bit better than
Daniel Deronda. Okay, but for the purposes of my novel,
of my book, Daniel Deronda, I think is more interesting
in some ways. I think Daniel Deronda is more thought provoking.
It is still an excellent novel, but it's one that
I think is overlooked because Middle March gets deserved attention
some of the later books I write about, I just
don't think. I think conservatives have an aversion to later
novels like.
Speaker 5: Conservatives conservatives of myself.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, I think after like after after WAW,
we get a little bit skeptical. But Muriel Spark, I
include the girls of Slender Means she was She's if
you like WAW, you're gonna like Muriel Spark. She's she
was also a Catholic convert. She was less orthodox in
her belief but she's about as funny as WAW. Formally
more interesting than WAW. And then vs. Night Paul. I
think he has some important lessons for conservatives. He was
loathed by liberal academics because he pushed back against postcolonialism,
and he won a Pulitzer. I mean, he was recognized
as a great novelist, but I think for whatever reason,
we're skeptical of him. And then I wanted to include
twenty first century novels to make clear that people are
still doing this. People great, great novels are still still
being written, and not every novel coming out is just
woke stuff to run away from.
Speaker 3: Christopher can I ask what twenty first century novels were
on your possible candidate list. I'm curious about this.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 6: The ones I included were Leif Vanger, Piece Like a
River and Christopher Beja Index of Self Destructive Acts. I
considered including Gilead by Marilyn Robinson, which is one of
the great novels of the century so far, but I
thought a lot of people have read that. I considered
including Cormick McCarthy, but again, I think a lot of
conservatives are familiar with Cormick McCarthy. There are a lot
of people already saying read Cormick McCarthy. I wanted to
advocate novels that were a little more obscure, but I
think I think I prefer them more than Cornmick McCarthy.
Speaker 5: Frankly, may I offer an answer, at least a partial
answer to Charlie. In my reading of Christopher's book thirteen
Novels conservatives will love but probably haven't read, I don't
take Christopher, who is with us and can correct me
if I'm wrong. I don't take Christopher as actually attempting
to establish to add these books to the canon, or
to establish an alternative canon. I take Christopher. I take
this guide as an exploration not only of these thirteen
novels and novelists, but as, in some ways the presentation
of Christopher's scalia. And it turns out that taking Chris
as a guide is worth it. He's that good. So
it may strike you, as I have to say it
struck me in some regards. I'm still a little I'm
still a little ticked off about Waverley because it's going
to take me hours more to get through that thing.
But Christopher's written a really good book and it's fascinating.
And just because he thinks this is the point. Yeah,
Christopher is so good that because he thinks these thirteen
novels are important, they are important. By the way, I am.
Speaker 6: I love that.
Speaker 3: I am going to.
Speaker 5: Make a Yeah, well, I figured you would tell Adele
to send the check to my home Adgry. So I
have a confession to make, and it really is a confession.
As far as I am aware, and unless by accident,
I have never read a novel written in the present century. Yeah,
but under Christopher's guidance, I'm going to read, and I'm
going to start with these two.
Speaker 6: There have been a lot of great novels over the
last twenty five years, and many of them don't espouse
conservative views. I'm a big fan of Jonathan Franzen's novels.
Nobody would confuse him with the conservative or expressing conservative ideas.
But yeah, I Peter, I think a lot of conservatives
share your wariness. But I think we were missing out
when we do that. And if I can give a
plug for one more novel, I write about this one
that Zora Neil Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God. That's
probably the most widely read book I cover it, which
she died in nineteen sixty. Really nobody knew about her.
She had some success in her lifetime, and then she
faded out and died in obscurity and poverty. And then
the novelist Alice Walker kind of resurrected her career in
the seventies and now her novel is the most assigned
novel by an American woman in colleges across the country.
Speaker 5: That's why I've stayed away from it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly, and that I think is okay, bad sign.
I think conservatives are wary of that. And uh when
she Alice Walker revived her reputation in part because Hearston
was presented as a This was present presented as a
black feminist novel, and there are feminist elements, but it's
much more complicated than that. But conservatives, I think will
love this. Hurston was really, really conservative. She was a
she was an American patriot. She hated communism. She was
she was so conservative. She hated Brown v Board. She
thought it was a bad decision because, in part because
it it assumed that black students could only learn if
white people were around them, which is ironically a progressive
argument today, and their eyes were watching God. Has some
really conservative arguments and points about about race and racial progress.
And there's a great passage in which Hurston kind of
subtly defends the reputation and accomplishments of Booker T. Washington
and his emphasis on self reliance education. But like you, Peter,
I think a lot of conservatives and I know I
was too. We're wary of this novel because of because
it was so popular. It's a you know, contrarian instinct.
Speaker 5: Here's the last largish question for you. You've got to
go on to other podcasts and sell your book. The
last largest question is this We now have, oh, depending
on how you count it, three decades at least, maybe
even half a century of the American Academy saying we
need to deconstruct novels, we need to read them through
the lens of gender studies. On and on it goes,
and there's not a word of that in your book.
You don't even take the time to refute this nonsense.
You just ignore it. You present essays about these novels
as if you were wearing a tweet jacket with the
stem of your pipe sticking out of one pocket in
a small Midwestern college in nineteen fifty five.
Speaker 6: My author photo, I am actually wearing a tweet jacket.
So you're close. Because I don't think this was written
for the general reader, and I don't think the general
reader cares about that, And I think there's some hope
even in the Academy. There is kind of a there's
a little bit of a movement afoot, not led by conservatives,
led by center left professors to move to a more
traditional way of teaching literature because they see that the
English major is dying, and so is a history major.
The humanities in general are in trouble, and it's people
are realizing, even people in the Academy are realizing it's
because they've politicized these novels and have over theorized them. So,
I mean, I have some passing references, especially in my
chapter on my Antonia by Willa Cather, I have a
nod to some of the amagy Academy is doing. But
I just think the average reader doesn't care about that.
They just want to know. They want to enjoy the
novels themselves, and they're open to deeper meanings. But you know,
only so far. It's easy to to become the target
of satire with some of these readings. So yeah, I
just I really focus on the novels and the context
of the novels and generally avoid I really don't get
into the theory behind them at all.
Speaker 1: What is your favorite book on this list and why lovely.
Speaker 6: When I started the list, I would have said Waverley,
But I think now it is My Antonia.
Speaker 1: Okay, I listen.
Speaker 3: To me, I say, listeners can't see the shocked book
on Peter's face.
Speaker 6: No, I am a I am a Walter. I'm a
big Walter Scott stand but no, Antonia is such a
moving and powerful depiction of uh, to use the maybe
cheesy term, the American dream, and it's it's about the
success and happiness that immigrants can find in the United States.
It doesn't it doesn't idealize immigration. It doesn't suggest that
all immigrants will find happiness and success here. And Peter,
I quote, I quote your boss Ronald Reagan and his
one of his speeches about the contributions of immigrants, and
obviously that this novel is the early twentieth century and
the situation is very different now. But well, heck, I'm
I'm on a podcast with an immigrant who has made
a couple of contributions to the American Dream.
Speaker 5: So probation, let's not get carried away about cooking.
Speaker 2: But I also learned, yes, I think might be now.
Speaker 6: I also love My Antonia because it features a big
family and there aren't many novels that have big family,
and Antonia finds happiness in part through her her many
many children, and this comes towards the end of the
novel and it's a very moving scene for me.
Speaker 3: Well, Christopher, congratulations on the book. Once again. For listeners,
it's thirteen novels every conservatives you read, but you probably haven't.
That's close enough, I think close enough. Yeah. Now, I'll
say this in closing, unlike Peter's confused, indignant rants about
what you've done this, I only have one complaint out
of everything I've read, including the footnotes. By the way,
I love your footnotes. I'm an academic nerd too, and
so don't ignore the footnotes. Readers, you confess that you
don't like Walker Percy, and I don't know. I know
those are fighting words, man, I'm sorry, they just are.
But that's for another occasion.
Speaker 6: So Steve, can I just say, I know, I feel
like it's a guilty displeasure. I feel like I should
like him, but I've just never enjoyed any of his
novels very much.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they do take a little bit of work, and
I get all that. But anyway, thank you for joining us. Christopher, Congratulations,
on the book and to our listeners, everyone should go
out and buy it.
Speaker 6: All right, thank you guys very much. Great talking to you, Chris.
Speaker 5: Congratulations you bastard.
Speaker 3: Well you know on that point, Peter, I mean, as
I read the book and thought about it, Christopher is
making me feel quite old, I have to say, and
that's why I need help of today's second sponsor, Qualitia Senalytic.
Qualitia s Analytic is at the frontier of what is
currently possible in the science of human aging. Snalytics are
a science field that is revolutionizing human aging. The big
culprit behind that middle aged feeling can be sines and cells,
that is, zombie cells that linger in your body after
their useful function, wasting your energy and resources. And I
certainly have a surplus of those I think around my midsection.
So the accumulation of zombie sales can lead to less energy,
slower workout recovery, joint discomfort, and basically just feeling like me.
Qualitas Analytic is a groundbreaking clinically tested supplement with nine
vegan plant derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate
sed essen cells, helping you feel years younger in just months.
Here's how it works. You take it just two days
a month, helping your body naturally eliminate zombie cells to
age better at the cellular level. I know James has
tried it and uses it, and I think Rob Long
has used it too. Peter, lot of them are with
us today, so you'll have to take their word for it.
Experience the science of feeling younger. Go to qualitialife dot
com backslash ricochet for up to fifty percent off your
purchase and use code ricochet for additional fifteen percent. That's
qualitialife dot com slash ricochet for an extra fifteen percent
off your purchase. Your older self will thank you and
thanks to Qualia for sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast. One
of the things this is the three or four books
on Christopher's list I have read. I read a long
time ago, and I've I need to reread them because
I've really kind of forgotten them. But I have to say,
I mean, you know, Scoop is one that I do
go back to once in a while, along with Charles.
It's got some wonderful stuff in it.
Speaker 5: But by the way, can we agree that Charlie's Charlie's
question was really quite a remarkable display of what I
think any properly trained psychiatrist would describe as passive aggression.
I am ignorant, Christopher said, Charlie, I have read only
one book of the thirteen you list here. On the
other hand, I have read the Bible and Greek. I
have read all of Shakespeare. I have read everything by
Walter Scott, except of course this one. I mean, it
was really quite a question that Charlie put can.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to be clear that, unlike with say, movies,
which I really am truly ignorant about, although I'm trying
to fill the gaps, I have read a lot of books.
Speaker 2: I just hadn't read these ones.
Speaker 1: I thought it was I thought it was ad mobly
honest to say, hey, I've read one of these thirteen books.
Speaker 5: Well charge, I wanted to set.
Speaker 1: It in the right context, you know. I didn't want
to sound like I couldn't read right right, all right, Well, right,
you guys, before we go today, I wonder if either
of you have any quick thoughts on things that will
be on the minds of listeners from the news.
Speaker 3: So we've just seen this, this Trump tour of the
Middle East, that's been Oh my lord quite the box office, right,
I mean, he certainly has the visuals down better than anybody,
I think, Peter sins Ronald Reagan, right, Uh, And I
don't know, do either you have any sort of summary
thoughts on what you observed happened in the last few days.
Speaker 5: I'm happy to go. And my summary thought is help me,
help me because and maybe this is a little bit
like your ad for quality that if you came up
as I did under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
Donald Trump is really hard to take. And the idea
that he would accept a seven forty seven from cutter
and so, and this notion of these unbelievable images of him,
these arab dances as he enters vast palaces, all of which,
of course is our money extorted by these tinpot dictators
over there, recycled into vast palaces, and so all of
it strikes me is so unseemly. Stop. Then we have
on the in the Capitol the Republicans with a very
slender majority in the House of Representatives, led by Mike Johnson,
whom I read and whom I will be interviewed, who
I will be interviewing in a week. I read. Mike
Johnson is a good guy, and in fact, he strikes
me as the most intriguing story in Washington because it's
a good guy who's doing an impossible job and he's
doing it. However, on the latest news accounts, they're stuff.
And do you know what's going to have to happen.
Mike Johnson is going to have to have Donald Trump
call half a dozen members of the House of Representatives
and swing them back into line. And so this man,
whom I find just so hard to take, turns out
to be indispensable help.
Speaker 3: Right right, Well, I mean, first of all, I'm glad
you pivoted to the tax bill, Peter, because if you
listen to our episode last week with Ben Dominich, it's
pretty clear that Trump's not paying much attention. He just
wants a big bill to sign and doesn't seem to
care that much about the details. And that's a big mistake.
As you know, Reagan was deeply involved in the details
of both of his big tax bills. I will add
this observation and then get Charles thought, which is one
thing is different right now that I'm surprised no one
is mentioning in the analysis of it which is we
are no longer supplicants for arab oil. We now go
there on the energy question from a position of strength,
and I correct. I think that changes the dynamics to
some extent. Now that doesn't bear on your you're puzzlement
over the airplane and certain other aspects of the trip,
But I do think it's a different world now, just
for that one very important fact.
Speaker 1: Charles Well, I'm not a foreign politics buter so I will.
Speaker 5: Are you really a reader when it comes.
Speaker 2: To it, No, apparently not.
Speaker 1: But I am going to join a militia over this
tax bill, and in particular the salt provisions, which are
a disgrace. The very notion that is Floridian should pay
more for the same federal government because New York and
California are a profligate and can't handle their own affairs
is revolting per se. But as politics from Republicans, it
strikes me as being insane, because what's going to happen
is they're going to massively increase the salt cap, probably
without making changes to the alternative minimum tax or the
tax rates, so people in those states will get a
better deal than they had prior to twenty seve, which
means that the governments of California and New Jersey and
Illinois and New York are going to increase spending in
those states, make themselves more dysfunctional than they were before,
have no effect on their own taxpayers, and then send
the bill to me. So I'm watching this Republican Party
essentially reward the blue states that have made themselves into
national joke and punish Florida and other red states that
have done all the right things for ten years.
Speaker 2: That's conservatism, is it? I? Just I despair?
Speaker 5: Okay, Charlie, help Speaker Johnson out of the following bind
He has two hundred and twenty Republicans. Yeah, there is
a midterm election coming. He must preserve, yeah, three four
five seats in upstate New York. And he must preserve
this small but essential delegation of Republicans from here in California.
And if he's still any hope of passing any important
legislation in the second half of Donald Trump's term, he
actually needs to pick up a couple of seats in
Orange County. And that's the reason for salt. It is
practical politics. How do you answer that?
Speaker 1: Let me say, a couple of things. The first one is,
of course, it is true that there wouldn't be a
Republican House majority without New York, but there also wouldn't
be a Republican House majority without Florida. Governor DeSantis's map
that he pushed through and used a great deal of
political capital to push through is a reason too. So
if you end up punishing Florida, which is not a
swing state and the way it used to be but
still could flip back in a couple of areas, then
you have the same problem as you have in New York. Second,
I accept as a matter of practical politics that you
have to do something on salt and Donald Trump I
wish he hadn't, but did promise that he would during
the election. But if you look at the moment at
how much of the space the headroom within the bill
is being taken up by even the small assault offer
it is outing out everything else, it seems to me
to be absolutely disproportionate as a percentage of what has
been proposed. And so as somebody who is quite practical
and who understands that politics is not an exercise in
academic griping, I am not against deals. I know that
there were a lot of deals done in the Reagan
tax bills as well. But look at the cost. And
I don't use that to imply that tax cuts cost money,
but given that they're trying to keep down the quote
unquote cost of these tax cuts, look at the cost
of salt one thing that Trump promised relative to everything
else that it's absolutely enormous. And the deal that they struck,
which was thirty thousand dollars, which is very, very generous,
was described by the New York delegation it's being insulting.
I'm looking at this and I'll finish on this question.
The reason this annoys me so much, Peter, is I'm
not a Trump guy. I'm not a MAGA guy, right
the listeners know this. But I do like a lot
of what Trump has done. And I thought the first
tax bill is terrific in twenty seventeen. But the argument
that I get, the one I get often dripping in contempt,
is you don't understand, Charles. We needed Trump, We needed
MAGA because this squishy UNI Party driven by moderates and
the GOP just gives the farm away every time they
subsidize Blue states. They won't defund Planned parenthood they block
conservative policy. And what I'm watching now is that. So
it's not that there is all of this opobrium being
thrown at Mike Lawler and the Democrats in New York
as the Republicans in New York. It's being thrown at
Chip Roy and Thomas Massey and Ran Paul. So if
the argument is we live in the real world, we
have to keep a coalition together, that's fine. That was
also true though in twenty thirteen. It was also true
in twenty fifteen, in two thousand and six, in nineteen
eighty one. So if we're gonna argue we need Trump
because otherwise we don't defund Planned parenthood, well we're giving
in to the moderates on not defunding Planned parented. If
the argument is what we need Trump and we need
Maggot because otherwise we give away these subsidies to blue
states in the blue well, look, it's very very annoying
us a Floridian, to be far more conservative than these people,
to live in a state that has done all of
the reforms that the Conservatives have wanted to do for
fifty years, and to watch them molly coddling the moderate
uniparty squishes that I was taught had been exiled.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm annoyed about it. It's not that I
don't understand the need for practical politic.
Speaker 5: Okaye, Charley, I just wanted to say one thing to Charlie. Charlie,
you're beautiful when you're angry.
Speaker 3: Well, I was just gonna say, Peter, we'll mark Charles
down as undecided. Now it is hard to follow a
an exquisite rant like that, any rant that includes molly coddling,
as you know, on number A ten on the scale.
But it's actually even worse than that, Charles. We left
out completely the number of Republicans trying to preserve a
lot of the green energy booned dogs.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, right, that's the other bit.
Speaker 3: And you know that just blows my mind too. I mean,
it was very clever of the Biden people to direct
a lot of the money to red states. That was
on purpose. And guess what it looks like. It's with
an ace of succeeding in keeping all that This.
Speaker 5: Is this is this is just this is the agony
of practical politics for conservatives. Well, I convert to the Steve.
Steve will know the details on this, But I revert
to this that when Ronald Reagan took office in January
of nineteen eighty one, having promised to eliminate the Department
of Education, the Department of Education had been, in effect,
had been in existence for one year. If there were
ever a time you could have killed it, it was then.
And Ed Poes told me that he went up to
the Capitol Hill to discuss the Reagan agenda with our senators.
We had recaptured the Senate in nineteen eighty we were
in charge. And he came back to the White House
and said, oh, my goodness, even the Republican senators are
sticking up. They had already figured out how to use
the Department of Education to said benefits to their constituents,
and they wanted to defend it, not eliminated. Unbelievable.
Speaker 3: But now, remember Peter though, that by my count in
nineteen eighty one, yes, the Republican Senate, but sixteen of them,
that's my count. We're modern to liberals. You still have
person Magmaflize, and nowadays you only had.
Speaker 5: That wing of the party is gone now exactly, so
we have a better except for upstate New York, right well.
Speaker 3: But even there, I mean, at least Dephonic is one
of the persons.
Speaker 5: Accurate.
Speaker 3: True, And look, look that's obviously this is very transparent.
It's in the interest of their constituents, and they're going
to do that. And it's hard to ask someone to
risk their seat for something except that's what Democrats did
with Obamacare also other times.
Speaker 1: Right, it's absolutely hard to ask someone to do that.
And I don't ask a result resent that, say, Mike
Lawa is trying to. What I resent is that all
of the energy seems to be spent denouncing Rand Paul
for saying, hang on a minute, this massively blows open
the budget deficit, rather than denouncing Mike Lawa.
Speaker 5: And I get that.
Speaker 1: There is a political element, but then don't tell me
that you're pere and everyone else is a squish.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yes, yes, when it comes to it. When it
comes to it, the Speaker is going to send the
White House a list of half a dozen Republicans that
he wants the President to call to get them to
back into line. And on that list it's going to
be six conservatives, not six moderates. Correct, Yes, yeah, for
the most part, that's right, Let's get into line. That's right. Okay,
let's get out this way.
Speaker 3: I'll pile on to Charles's rant by saying that one
of the things that's cheering to me right now is
that we really do have Blue states on the up
against the wall, I mean, politically, fiscally, in various other ways.
And so to give in now to help the Blue
states is political malpractice of the highest order in that regard.
I thought one of the most interesting things said this
week was not from not about the budget the tax bill,
but it bears on this question. And it was Jamie Diamond,
the CEO of JP Morgan, who was a Democrat by
all accounts thought to have been a candidate for Treasury
Secretary for President Kamala Harris. Had such a thing happened,
and he said, I don't understand why we call it
red tape. It ought to be called blue tape, because
it's the Blue states that are the worst on regulation.
So when you have Jamie Diamond saying things like that,
and you have, as we know out here, Peter, if
you're paying attention, Gavin Newsom's crab marching to the right
as fast as he possibly can on so many areas,
this is not the time to go what's the old
line from Margaret Thatcher.
Speaker 5: This is not the kind of goes dobbly.
Speaker 3: George, yes, right, and let's not go wobbly your Republicans
in the House and Senate. But that's where we are,
and where we are is at the end of our
hour together, so everyone should go out and by Christopher
Scalia's book, we thank you for joining us. We thank
our sponsor's cozy earth and quality of Synolytic. Please send
in your comments at Ricochet and we will see you
there in the comments and back here live again next week.
Speaker 5: Bye bye, guys Ricochet. Peas join the conversation.