And???
OK, so what should a governing leader do about that?
Below I continue to experiment with the form of this newsletter. Rather than full column-length treatments of one or two issues, here I briefly discuss one piece I recently wrote and a bunch of pieces I recently read that touch upon key elements of governing.
“And?”
That’s the word (and tone of voice) behind this newsletter. So much is now written and said about issues of public interest. But nearly all of it stays at the level of analysis, critique, venting, philosophizing, and politicizing. But after all that commentary, what is a governing leader actually supposed to do? Yes, that recent event is maddening and that report is illuminating and that speech is energizing…
And? What do we want our governing leaders to do about it?
A case in point is the recent unrest on some campuses. Yes, these incidents implicate free speech and inquiry, the right to associate and assemble, campus discipline, antisemitism, intellectual diversity, viewpoint neutrality, and much more. But after all of that has been explored, what do we do?
I wrote a piece this week for American Purpose focused on the private universities at the center of these issues. I focus on these elite privates because good governance—by their oversight boards—is essential to turning things around. Publics have free-speech guarantees and transparency requirements that privates don’t. That means these private boards have a special obligation to create and enforce policies that ensure healthy learning environments. The important takeaway is that these boards can address these problems. I explain how they can start. (If you read my piece, you’ll understand why I’m proud of what the Harvard Corporation just did.)
For many of us on America’s political right, originalism and textualism are the bedrocks or constitutional and statutory interpretation. They are generally the fairest, most transparent, most predictable, and most democratically faithful approaches. But originalism and textualism don’t answer all interpretive questions; we need other tools at the ready. In recent years, natural law has earned increased attention as a possible first-pass supplement. (If you’re interested in this subject, see this, this, this, and this to get started.).
I’m skeptical. I believe, for example, that natural law is too indeterminate, worryingly extra-democratic, and makes too much room for judicial adventuring. But natural law does provide something that many observers want: morality in law. I believe popular sovereignty provides morality and legitimacy (this is why I like the approaches of John Hart Ely and James Bradley Thayer, as I discuss here). These issues are important for those who govern because at some point courts will get involved in applying and interpreting just about all statutes and regulations. Those who govern should be aware of judges’ approaches to morality when that happens. John Yoo of the UC Berkeley School of Law and AEI touches on these matters, specifically the morality of the American framework of governing, in this recent Heritage lecture.
I'm of the mind that housing policy is among the most philosophically demanding areas of domestic governing (along with family policy and education policy). To do housing policy well, policy leaders need to have a coherent vision that encompasses countless issues—the role of the state and local governments, zoning, environmental stewardship, communities' legitimate NIMBY positions, economic integration, infrastructure, schools, population projections, building costs, private-sector capacities, family size, commute times, and on and on. If this interests you, To get up to speed on some recent state-level matters, check out this Governing article by Jared Brey. It's also worth following happenings in Utah.
I've written a good bit about family policy in the last several years. Like housing policy, it requires a good governing leader to think through a host of questions before legislating: What are the goals of the government here, what are the duties and powers of the family, in which ways should a government engage, when does government activity become intrusive, what are the roles of different levels of government. I've tried to answer some of these questions by discussing the history of American family policy and offering a principles-based approach (using the concept of subsidiarity and elevating community). If you're interested in the subject, you should take a look at this new Institute for Family Studies report by Lyman Stone and Erin Wingerter. Though it looks at Southern Europe, the questions asked and answered are widely applicable and instructive.
Relatedly, Josh Bowman of the Ciceronian Society just wrote a good review of the two new family-focused books by Tim Carney and Brad Wilcox.
Excellent, long Chronicle of Higher Education essay by Nicolas Langlitz piece on the important difference between “value neutrality” and “viewpoint diversity” (and why the latter is needed). “The advocates of viewpoint diversity and value neutrality share the goal of preventing the degradation of colleges into seminaries, but they seek to realize it through very different moral economies.”
Relatedly, the Washington Post ed board has a good take on the distorting effects of mandatory statements in higher-ed hiring (i.e., how they tend to produce the opposite of viewpoint diversity). If you wonder if there’s any harm in viewpoint homogeneity, read this Nellie Bowles column in Persuasion on how institutionalized political bias undermined good journalism.
The University of Florida’s impressive Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education just hired 21 new faculty members.
At “Slow Boring,” Matt Yglesias writes on the consequences of college students doing less work and getting higher grades. This is an issue Rick Hess has sharply written about recently.
Interesting David Leonhardt column in the NYT on the centrism of modern populism. But also read my MI colleague Judge Glock who takes to City Journal to disagree with Leonhardt.
And regardless of your feelings about the political power of populism, this Matthew Kaminski piece for Politico on elites eating out in DC a generation ago does make you understand the subsequent rise of populism.