0:01

Welcome to the New Books Network. Hello

0:10

and welcome to Madison's Notes, the

0:13

official podcast of Princeton

0:15

University's James Madison Program

0:17

in American Ideals and

0:19

Institutions. I'm your host, Annika

0:23

Nordquist. Today

0:25

we're here to discuss practical

0:27

lessons on leadership and statesmanship

0:29

from great thinkers and leaders

0:32

from history. Here to

0:34

discuss is Johnny A. Burko

0:36

IV, the President and CEO

0:38

of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

0:41

ISI is a nonprofit organization founded

0:44

in 1953 by William F. Buckley

0:46

that introduces students to the

0:48

American tradition of liberty and to

0:50

a vibrant community of students and

0:53

scholars. I myself participated in

0:55

and really, really benefited from ISI's

0:58

programming when I myself was an undergraduate,

1:00

so it's especially fun for me to

1:02

be able to chat with Johnny today.

1:05

He has recently released an edited

1:07

volume of Gateway to Statesmanship, Selections

1:10

from Xenophon to Churchill, which contains

1:12

selection from a really wide variety

1:14

of thinkers all through the ancient

1:17

medieval, Renaissance and modern periods, men

1:19

and women from a variety of

1:21

different traditions, all meant to spark

1:24

discussion about the nature of statesmanship.

1:27

So with no further ado, I really

1:29

hope you enjoy this discussion. Johnny,

1:34

welcome to the show. I'm so excited to

1:36

have you on. I'm excited

1:38

to be here. So

1:40

to kick us off, you've this book

1:42

in the introduction, you say it's in

1:44

the mirrors for princes tradition.

1:48

And I think kind of the first thing as

1:50

an American that occurs to someone is, wait a

1:52

minute, there's no one in America who's a prince,

1:54

not one person. And

1:56

so kind of given that, I mean, it

1:58

seems like the idea of of what a

2:00

statesman entails has changed so

2:03

much over the past two,

2:05

3000 years. And

2:07

you've got this book that spans all

2:09

of it and then says for something

2:11

today, in a country where we

2:14

don't have princes, the mirrors for princes tradition

2:16

is relevant. So why is that the case?

2:18

Why do you think that there's kind of

2:20

this constant thread? Yeah, that's a great

2:22

question to start off, Annika. And I would

2:24

say, you know, I think each of us

2:26

are princes in

2:29

our respective domains. But,

2:32

you know, to unpack that a little bit more,

2:35

one of my key arguments is

2:37

that the fundamental ingredients of statesmanship

2:39

have not changed over time, you

2:41

know, in part because human nature

2:44

is fixed. And regardless

2:46

of the regime type, I think people

2:48

are generally looking for the same qualities

2:50

in their political leaders. So part

2:53

of the reason that I was drawn to the

2:55

mirrors for princes tradition is because in our own

2:58

contemporary American context, you

3:01

know, if we look around right now, a

3:03

lot of people are complaining constantly about the

3:05

political leadership we have in Washington, DC, but

3:08

very few people are actually articulating the

3:10

qualities that we wanna see in political

3:13

leaders today. And I

3:15

think it's interesting that America has so

3:17

many, I mean, dozens upon dozens of

3:20

self-help books for entrepreneurs,

3:22

right? Helping them to be, you know,

3:25

found a unicorn company, but nothing comparable

3:27

to statesmen. And really the mirrors for

3:29

princes was a very practical tradition that

3:31

offered moral, you know,

3:34

and theoretical and, you know,

3:36

management advice for political leaders.

3:39

And it existed in literally every

3:41

civilization known to mankind in

3:44

our own country doesn't have that tradition.

3:46

And so this is an attempt to

3:49

both recover it, but also revive it

3:51

within the context of our own, you

3:53

know, constitution and American framework. Yeah,

3:56

and I really liked that. You used the word

3:58

embattled at the beginning of your- introduction.

4:00

And it's kind of funny because people are very

4:02

quick to be like, we have the world's worst

4:05

politicians, our politicians are terrible. But

4:07

there's not a lot of discussion of, is

4:10

it because we're not actually giving them the tools to

4:12

be good politicians? Is there kind of a step back

4:14

that you can take beyond the very

4:16

last where you're like, I would prefer if they didn't

4:18

embezzle money, I prefer if they didn't do this and

4:20

that, but is there something kind of more primal that

4:22

we can be working on? So

4:25

the practicality, I think what you're talking

4:28

about is very key. But it's

4:30

also kind of interesting because some of the thinkers

4:32

in your book are not people that we associate

4:34

necessarily with being super practical. I think

4:37

Aristotle and Aquinas, it's interesting because obviously,

4:39

as you know, in the ancient world,

4:41

Aristotle had more of a reputation of

4:43

being practical. But today, philosophy, it's not

4:46

kind of considered in that camp. And

4:49

Aquinas, it is a flaw.

4:51

It's not something that I'm taking home and I'm saying,

4:53

oh, he gave me five easy tips to make me

4:55

a better student or a better leader. And I'll

4:57

add even within Aristotle, you went with the

4:59

ethics, you didn't go with the politics, you

5:02

went with the headiest possible thing. And

5:05

so kind of given that, what do you

5:07

think looking at some of those thinkers who

5:09

are like that we can take out of

5:11

it to view them as kind of more

5:13

practically minded thinkers? Yeah,

5:16

so I think, so

5:18

the advice in the tradition kind

5:21

of operates in two ways.

5:23

In one side, there's the more

5:25

practical, do this, don't do that. Here's

5:27

how you pick personnel. Here's what a

5:29

good education looks like, things

5:31

of that nature. But on the other side,

5:35

what the more theoretical aspects of

5:37

the tradition are focused on painting

5:39

an idea, a portrait of an

5:41

ideal leader or the qualities that

5:43

an ideal leader would have, that

5:47

a leader could hold up to themselves like

5:49

a mirror to examine their own conduct and

5:51

character. With

5:54

someone like Aquinas, I

5:56

think given that there were perhaps

5:59

less concerned, constraints on political leaders in

6:01

a let's say a monarchical or an

6:03

imperial context I don't want to say

6:05

no constraints. I actually think there are quite a

6:08

few that we might not think of today But

6:11

because there were less constraints at least by

6:13

law You know

6:15

part of this tradition was basically, you know

6:17

Reaching out to a king or queen and

6:19

saying hey, you know if you abandon this

6:22

God stuff or this virtue stuff Right, you're

6:24

gonna suffer the torments of hell It

6:27

was kind of a way of like getting their attention and

6:29

saying hey, you know, don't think you're too invincible You

6:32

know everyone is is going to die one

6:34

day and meet their maker So you better

6:37

get your act together? So some of it

6:39

was designed really to prick the conscience and

6:41

to kind of elevate them above material concerns

6:44

and you know, I do think Aristotle's ethics

6:47

is one of those things where Even

6:50

though, you know, some of it might be

6:52

hard to discern kind of at first glance

6:54

There is a lot of great practical advice.

6:56

How do you be courageous, you know, and

6:58

it actually helps to understand that most people

7:00

are You know

7:03

lean towards being too timid and too afraid

7:05

And so if you want to hit that

7:07

golden mean of being courageous as a leader

7:09

You're gonna need to you know Aim your

7:11

arrow a little bit past courage towards

7:13

rashness and you'll probably you know

7:15

Compensate and land right where you need to

7:17

similarly with with temperance Most human beings are

7:20

inclined to eat and drink too much. Right?

7:22

If you aim on the side of you

7:24

know Having a

7:26

little less than you think is appropriate. You'll

7:28

probably hit the mean so I think there

7:30

are there are aspects that are more Practical

7:33

even if you know, you don't see them

7:35

at face value, you know When you

7:37

talk about that everywhere in the world

7:39

has had this tradition one of the things I really

7:42

appreciate about your book is That

7:44

you dig find some of the texts that

7:46

aren't necessarily obvious And

7:48

so I'm wondering from kind of the

7:51

Eastern traditions you have a text from India a

7:53

text from China The ancient

7:55

Western tradition and then the Jewish

7:57

and Christian traditions all of which People

8:00

talk a lot about the differences between

8:02

these. There are actually really fundamental differences

8:05

about a lot of different topics and how to live

8:07

the best life and all these issues. In

8:10

your experience, looking through these texts,

8:12

did you find that they were

8:14

mostly similar or that those differences

8:17

manifested themselves? Well,

8:19

I think it's one of those things that

8:21

at first glance, the differences are very

8:24

apparent. Right. I

8:27

think you see in Hanfei

8:29

and ancient China and Catillia

8:31

and India, and even in

8:33

Xenophon, I think there

8:35

is much more of a realist approach

8:38

to politics. The advice

8:40

in all of them is, you know, it

8:42

strikes me as being much more practical

8:45

in nature than some of

8:47

the advice you would get in Augustine

8:49

or Thomas Aquinas. And

8:51

also there's, I think, just simply more

8:54

of an emphasis on kind of the

8:56

application of power. There's

8:58

a willingness, even in saying

9:01

that piety is an important aspect

9:03

of ruling, but

9:06

at the same time, there's a sense

9:08

in which that's really more

9:10

for public kind of perception

9:12

than actual holiness.

9:16

Although I will say that someone like Xenophon

9:19

and Catillia plays a really

9:21

strong emphasis on the restraint,

9:23

restraining your kind of moral, you

9:26

know, not indulging in what would be considered

9:28

to be passions, you know, whether it's wine,

9:30

women, et cetera, because

9:34

they think that any effective ruler

9:36

needs to have those passions under control,

9:39

but that's probably for different reasons than

9:41

a Christian might have them

9:43

under control. So in that sense, I think, you

9:47

know, I actually don't see Machiavelli

9:50

as much of a rupture from

9:53

the medieval Christian tradition, but going

9:55

back to some of these ancient texts,

9:58

they strike me as quite... Machiavellian and

10:01

a lot of their advice. But

10:05

then I would say there's you know, there's a

10:07

few themes that are that are pretty consistent throughout

10:09

I mentioned restraint Nearly everyone

10:11

thinks you know, you cannot be a good

10:13

leader No matter what the tradition if you

10:15

don't have moral restraint, that's sort

10:18

of the foundation I

10:20

think most Effective

10:22

leaders and great leaders throughout the

10:24

tradition have a strong sense of

10:26

realism Even though they're

10:28

not, you know purely realist in

10:30

their thinking I think of someone

10:32

like St. Thomas more who I

10:35

think really embodies kind of the virtues of a

10:37

Christian realism And then

10:39

a few more areas. I think they all have a

10:41

profound sense of Transcendence in the

10:43

common good. So in

10:45

terms of transcendence, they are, you know

10:47

ordering their regime towards

10:50

more permanent realities than politics

10:52

are pointing their society towards

10:55

the good or towards God

10:57

himself Secondly the common good there's

10:59

a strong sense that and you

11:01

see this in Cicero that a

11:04

great leader is not primarily Motivated

11:06

by either personal gain or self-interest

11:09

Nor are they going into politics on

11:11

behalf of a political faction or a

11:13

class interest They really have a vision

11:16

for the flourishing of the whole regime

11:19

And then lastly, I would say that beauty

11:22

is a consistent theme Great

11:24

leaders they're often builders of beautiful

11:26

things and they understand the way

11:29

that most people don't approach

11:31

politics from Reason first and foremost,

11:33

you know, their imaginations are captured

11:36

through beautiful things whether that's a

11:38

cathedral or a palace or a

11:40

museum or a library or infrastructure

11:44

connecting, you know roads bridges things

11:46

like that and It's

11:48

through beauty that they're able to build

11:50

a legacy that endures, you know long

11:53

beyond their reign And so I think

11:55

a combination of those things are really present in

11:57

in all of these thinkers throughout the tradition That's

12:00

really kind of amazing because that is the

12:02

beauty piece specifically. One thing I have

12:04

absolutely never heard discussed anywhere

12:07

for advice from the modern era for

12:09

politicians. Yeah,

12:11

it's a shame. How

12:14

could it be a constant and then just totally

12:16

disappear? That's crazy. Yeah, that's a good

12:18

question. I mean, part of it... So,

12:21

I mean, part of the reason it probably was

12:23

a constant is when you had... So

12:26

in many of these contexts, there

12:29

was not a legislative branch that was

12:31

created from the executive branch. And so

12:33

if a king or queen has control

12:36

of the purse, they're probably going to

12:38

want to build monuments,

12:41

so they can very easily say,

12:43

all right, we're going to raise taxes by ex

12:45

about and we're going to start building beautiful things

12:47

in the capital and throughout the empires. So

12:50

that might be one reason. I

12:53

guess one aspect that's interesting

12:56

in the American context is, obviously

12:59

we have some beautiful monuments

13:01

in Washington DC, but

13:03

so I think a lot of the activity

13:06

of the statesmen that you would have

13:08

seen in these more historic contexts actually

13:10

shifted to the realm of the entrepreneur.

13:12

Yeah, definitely. And so you see the

13:14

kind of the... If

13:17

you're thinking about, okay, who are the

13:19

quote unquote, like great men in American

13:21

history, you think obviously of

13:24

a few of our presidents, but I think history

13:26

will largely look back and say, oh, you have

13:28

John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and you can kind

13:30

of go down the list. And

13:32

what was peculiar about the

13:35

sort of self-made aristocratic class 100

13:37

years ago in America is

13:39

they did have this strong sense of

13:42

public spiritedness. And so every city,

13:45

you'd go to Pittsburgh and they would want

13:47

to build an opera and an art museum

13:49

and a cathedral that would rival or maybe

13:51

even top the one in New York or

13:54

the one in Detroit or Chicago. Because there

13:56

was almost an aspect of honor and kind

13:58

of trying to outcompete. the other

14:00

sort of elites in the public realm, the

14:02

way that many old kind of kings or

14:04

rulers would have done. And

14:07

yeah, I don't know

14:09

that. I mean, I'm trying to

14:11

think if today, you know, a

14:13

political leader says, I have a

14:15

vision to beautify America. I don't

14:17

know. That would be an interesting sell to

14:19

Congress. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, and

14:21

I think, I don't know. It doesn't

14:23

seem to me that that's where

14:25

very much, if any billionaire's philanthropy is

14:28

directed towards these days either. But I

14:30

think some of that's also just things

14:32

have moved online. It's considered bigger

14:34

or more impressive sometimes to do something that's not physical.

14:37

I'm sort of curious. Well, one,

14:39

I though the Machiavellian strand

14:42

in the non-Western elections that you chose

14:44

also really struck me. I mean, there's

14:46

that amazing quote from Al Farabi, the

14:48

Muslim thinker about how being a good

14:50

politician is like being a good doctor.

14:52

And who cares if they use their

14:54

health to do good or bad, your

14:56

job is to heal. I was

14:59

checking the chapter, I was like, is this the Machiavelli

15:01

chapter and I flipped to the wrong page? But

15:04

I have a question actually about the

15:07

Chinese inclusion, Han Tze, because

15:10

you said when speaking about in your

15:12

introduction, that he breaks from the Western

15:14

tradition in advising that rulers keep a

15:17

low profile and only appear in public

15:19

when necessary. That was kind of interesting

15:21

to me that you considered that very

15:23

opposite to the Western tradition. Why wouldn't

15:26

that be good advice in the West?

15:30

So, and perhaps

15:32

that comment is more

15:34

so thinking about

15:36

statesmen in the West in the last

15:38

hundred years. So, if I

15:40

think about the statesmen that I included that

15:42

are more recent, that I essentially added to

15:44

this tradition to bring it up to the

15:46

modern day, I focused

15:48

on the 20th century,

15:51

Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill,

15:54

and Teddy Roosevelt. And

15:57

so I think there's a couple things. I

15:59

think with Teddy, Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, you

16:01

know, perhaps I should make the caveat

16:03

and say, I'm specifically thinking in the

16:05

Anglo American context, right,

16:08

the political leaders, I think

16:10

you just have to be leading leading

16:12

out front, you know, I

16:14

mean, just think of, yeah, think of

16:17

FDR, think of JFK, think of Ronald

16:20

Reagan, right, even think of Donald Trump,

16:22

like these are people that are very

16:24

visible. And

16:26

in, you know, their entire lives are

16:28

almost external. It's hard to even say

16:31

who are these these individuals interpersonal, like,

16:33

we don't know what their inner life

16:35

is like. In, you know, in some

16:37

cases, they may not have much of

16:39

an inner life at all. Charles

16:42

de Gaulle is a little bit different. He was

16:44

he was very aloof

16:48

and never kind of went to

16:50

the mess hall. He, I mean, he never really

16:52

liked to be in public around

16:54

other people. So he kind of much had

16:56

this perhaps maybe a more Eastern

16:58

view. So if you go

17:01

back to Han Fei, why is it that

17:03

you would want this more kind of reserved

17:05

low profile part of it was to cultivate

17:07

an aura of mystery. Because

17:11

in the ancient world, you know,

17:13

really Kings were also considered to

17:15

be gods, right? This idea of

17:17

sacral kingship pretty much was

17:20

ubiquitous in the ancient world. What were

17:22

in ancient China, whether you're in Mesopotamia

17:24

or whether you were in sort

17:27

of, you know, in the Americas. And

17:30

so if you're if you're having to

17:32

convince the people that you are also

17:34

a god or divine in some way,

17:37

having that aura of mystery and not

17:39

being too, you're trying to

17:41

not be too not to humanize yourself too much,

17:43

or you might kind of let give

17:45

up buying, stop buying it. But

17:48

there was another reason to you see this

17:50

in Han Fei, his advice and on

17:52

his ministers. And he basically says that

17:55

your your minister should never know your

17:57

own desires.

18:00

or your own policy preferences, which seems

18:02

kind of crazy. And now

18:04

you think, okay, you filled your cabinet with people

18:06

who agree with your policy agenda. But

18:08

for him, you know,

18:10

he was dealing with a more permanent

18:13

bureaucratic class and he was trying to

18:15

make them more responsive. And so what

18:17

he would advise is that, you know,

18:19

the ministers will essentially come and present

18:22

their ideas. They'll be asked a question,

18:24

they'll present their ideas, and then the

18:26

king will remain impassable and not reveal

18:28

his thoughts. And then they'll all leave.

18:31

And then he can decide which course of

18:33

action to take when he's all alone by

18:36

himself, you know, because if they know where

18:38

he's leaning, the ministers will tailor

18:40

their words to appeal to him and will

18:42

deploy flattery and things like that. So a

18:45

lot harder to do if you don't know

18:47

what your boss or your king wants from

18:49

the start. So that's one example. Yeah,

18:52

I mean, it is kind of interesting because

18:55

there's a mix in your book of people

18:57

who were in that more

18:59

bureaucratic advisory role and

19:02

people who were actually it's kind

19:04

of interesting. I noticed

19:06

the first half of the book tended to

19:08

be people who were not political leaders and

19:10

that as we move to the present, you

19:12

get Washington and Teddy Roosevelt and the gall

19:14

and people who had very

19:16

serious actual political

19:18

impacts on their countries and then happened

19:20

to also write. Do

19:23

you think some of the differences in advice come

19:25

from those different kinds of positions?

19:27

And do you think also

19:30

that there's a reason why a lot

19:32

of what we have from the ancient world are people

19:34

sort of writing treatises for advisory roles

19:36

and what you chose for the modern

19:39

world were very much people with practical

19:41

experience? Yeah.

19:44

So in the ancient world, really, the

19:46

genre of the Mirrors for Princes served

19:49

two functions. Right. It was. It

19:51

was either for educators

19:54

who wanted to get the job of

19:56

being the tutor to the

19:58

royal family. So this was essentially

20:01

a mix of, it was almost like

20:03

they're putting their curriculum together and their

20:05

vision of what they wanna instill in

20:07

the next generation of, you know,

20:10

of princes. So they were essentially

20:12

auditioning to be a tutor or they

20:14

were auditioning to be a court minister, right? So

20:19

that's pretty much the entire context for

20:21

the tradition. In, as

20:23

we move to the modern era, this

20:27

is hard. This

20:29

is a really good question. Sorry, I didn't

20:31

mean it. It's a good question

20:33

because in one sense, we

20:38

don't quite have, so

20:40

we don't really have the one-on-one tutorial model of

20:43

education anymore. I think that's to our shame, but

20:46

we do have, you know, sort of a sector

20:48

of elite universities that are in theory supposed

20:51

to be playing that role. So

20:53

maybe you would find most of those, you know,

20:56

those tutors, you know, the aspiring tutors for

20:59

princes and princesses at places like Harvard or

21:03

Princeton or Stanford or Cambridge these days. Obviously

21:08

you had that with kind of the boarding schools. You

21:12

know, historically, a lot of American presidents went to these

21:14

old school, you know, like boarding

21:16

schools in the Northeast like Groton or,

21:18

you know, like, you know, at

21:20

least like Groton or, you know,

21:23

others. And so they got some of this

21:26

education instilled in them then. If

21:29

you think of political advisors, you know, I

21:31

guess you have people like Henry Kissinger who

21:34

are part of what you might describe

21:37

as kind of a, you know, a foreign

21:39

policy bureaucracy or an expert

21:41

class, you know, and they kind of

21:43

cycle in and out of administrations. And

21:45

so in that sense, we still do

21:48

have, you know, I

21:50

mean, I think interestingly enough between

21:52

administrations, you have kind of two

21:54

camps. You have the Republican,

21:56

obviously you have two camps, the Republicans and Democrats, and

21:58

you have people that kind of... cycle

22:00

in and out as advisors for one team or

22:03

another. And so interestingly,

22:05

in between administrations, what

22:07

do they do? They land at a think

22:09

tank, you know, in DC, or at a

22:12

position at one of

22:14

the Ivy League schools. And they normally publish

22:16

a book, and the book often has something

22:18

to do with like the, you know, they

22:20

might be a China expert, and here's their

22:22

vision of China. And they spend three years,

22:24

you know, in between a presidential administration,

22:27

really promoting all the ideas in that book

22:30

and sort of selling it like, hey, whoever's

22:32

the next president, you should pick me to

22:34

be your national security advisor. Right,

22:36

and then they'll advise the campaign, and then if

22:38

their side is victorious, then they'll kind of get

22:40

on board. So in that sense, I

22:43

could have looked for people that

22:46

had been long-term advisors for

22:48

different presidents, and see

22:50

if someone like Kissinger or others would have

22:52

any good advice. But

22:56

most people, you know, aren't as familiar with

22:58

those thinkers, and so I just decided to

23:00

stick with presidents. Well, I guess looking

23:02

at the ancient world, for example, I mean,

23:04

one of the examples that I was kind

23:06

of chewing on as I was reading it

23:09

is, what if, I mean, how different would

23:11

our vision of Greek statesmanship look if instead

23:13

of Aristotle's politics, we had the letters of

23:15

Alexander the Great or something like that, which

23:18

is sort of a very extreme example, because

23:21

it can be kind of hard to draw

23:23

the line between what Aristotle said and what

23:25

Alexander did. They seem kind of like extremes

23:27

in a lot of ways. But another interesting

23:30

one might be Cicero versus Augustus, because

23:32

we do have, for instance, like

23:34

the deeds of divine Augustus, if

23:36

that had been the text, it

23:38

would present a pretty different picture

23:40

of politics than Cicero.

23:42

But Augustus also loved

23:44

Cicero, even though he essentially

23:48

killed him. But... Yeah,

23:50

so that's really... Yeah,

23:52

this is great. So I did

23:54

not include the deeds of... The

24:00

if they quote unquote define a Gothic.

24:02

Why? Can I can see why the hell of a

24:04

thought experiment? Because it looked. As if I see

24:07

it actually been after. Cicero

24:09

I did include selections from

24:12

you. Cbs is the life

24:14

of Constantine, bearing on which

24:16

in many respects can be

24:18

considered a Christian Augustus. You.

24:20

Could be. In so

24:22

that that sort of are you now.

24:25

Part. Of the there in I think there are

24:27

definitely practical things to learn. Ah yes,

24:29

it is one of those things were

24:31

obviously Cicero was. Yeah. It's there's

24:33

a lot to explore and web. M

24:35

in Cicero arguably has the most famous.

24:38

The. Aren't you to on duties? Could be

24:40

considered to be the most famous of the

24:43

mirror. Sir Francis Bucks in terms of his

24:45

legacy lasted. Millennium. I

24:47

mean, Thomas Moore said, I have never left the

24:49

house without a copy of it in his breast

24:51

pocket. With. Presented in numerous kings

24:53

and queens Shake shake the early Church

24:56

Fathers but in some senses throw last

24:58

yeah Now that man he that the

25:00

Roman Republic was never restored like that

25:02

was The whole point of this book

25:05

was to revive Roman Republicanism for a

25:07

different age. And and you

25:09

know the legacy of of Caesar

25:11

Augustus. Was a profound one.

25:14

It out. And

25:16

so. Yeah. And I think

25:18

you know if he's I guess go back a little farther.

25:20

You mentioned Alexander the Great. And.

25:22

From what I've gathered and in

25:24

heard Alexander was actually quite inspired

25:27

by Cyrus the Great and by

25:29

Xenophon portrait of Syrah ah in

25:31

Chicago in for him that with

25:33

a major inspiration for. Countering

25:35

yeah Now eastward. An.

25:39

Interesting Yeah that is another thing that I

25:41

really liked about your but is he hits

25:43

you tell it a lot of selections that

25:46

cited the previous selection the seed. You kind

25:48

of get a sense of the thread

25:50

being drawn through it. Which. Is kind

25:52

of a lovely experience and it's like a half. I

25:54

have the context. Of

25:57

you picked up on. That's

26:00

are what I hope it's intentional of the

26:02

on the readers side to yeah. Yeah,

26:04

I'm looking a little bit

26:06

at the biblical examples that

26:09

you selected: Armor. I.

26:11

Was kind of struck. I mean if we

26:13

talk about. Examples emulate examples

26:16

Not to emulate. Judith.

26:18

And how authorities in introduction you're like wow, the

26:20

really three things I could a pig's I could

26:22

have been Esther, I could have done Daniel and

26:24

then I could have done Judith who in your

26:26

words seduces and the heads. And that's when you

26:28

went with. Among

26:31

the three, it's so why. The

26:35

great question in the I should

26:37

add that my wife's patron saint

26:39

of Judah. Okay, okay hold bold

26:41

choice on what I love about

26:43

Judith. Yearn for those of you

26:45

who are you know not familiar

26:48

with the story Basically Israel is

26:50

besieged by the Assyrians. She. Is

26:52

a very beautiful but also very

26:55

pious. Widow. She decides,

26:57

you know after preying on it, that she

26:59

since you kind of the sees the Jewish

27:01

leaders a little, that the hype the priests

27:03

a little bit and set it up. She

27:05

tells them part of her plan, but I

27:07

don't think the fullness of it and she

27:09

flips essentially behind enemy lines. She seduces the

27:12

Assyrian general hello Faraday's. She. Gets him

27:14

drunken his tent. In

27:16

she prays for the lord's deliverance before

27:18

she does this, because obviously. Ah,

27:21

You know, seducing and getting a

27:23

general drunk is pretty risky business

27:25

and thankfully he drinks too much,

27:27

passes out. She. Got his

27:29

head off and returns and. The. Jews

27:32

are victorious. Ultimately,

27:35

The. Thing that I love about this is

27:37

because of what I'm really trying to do

27:39

is to move. Politics.

27:41

Especially for conservatives out of the.

27:44

Realm. Of theory and into the realm

27:46

of action. The I am. And.

27:49

I think there's a temptation to

27:51

say. You know, Okay, everything

27:53

and in in maki it yet there's water.

27:56

There are a lot of evil pieces, advice,

27:58

and machiavelli, but there's a temptation. They

28:00

didn't Machiavellian approaches all evil and

28:02

therefore all we need to do

28:05

is have a good or moral

28:07

person in political office and therefore

28:09

all the right policy and all

28:12

right management administration will fall out.

28:15

And I and I really just don't think that's

28:17

true. You know, I think it's. You.

28:19

Obviously being good might be a

28:22

prerequisite for being a great ruler.

28:24

ah but it's not sufficient and

28:26

so I'm trying to look at

28:28

examples of people who didn't really

28:30

courageous thing even think that might

28:32

have seemed incredibly daring in even

28:35

risky in were willing to be

28:37

both kind of faithful in their

28:39

own religious traditions into their moral

28:41

compass. But. Really put themselves out

28:43

there. And I think Judith really did

28:46

that in an extreme way, but one

28:48

in which she was ultimately victorious, right?

28:50

And there's a little bit of machiavellian

28:53

Judith, if I can say so without

28:55

getting into as trouble which is she

28:57

was she's revered, right, at least in

29:00

that the Orthodox church. I'm probably in

29:02

the Catholic church as being a saint,

29:04

right and has has had this whole

29:07

book written about her. Because.

29:09

She was successful, right? If she has

29:12

failed, right? If if Allah Fairness had

29:14

taken advantage of her and killed her

29:16

right people would say, well, that's a

29:19

massive scale of like that. She was

29:21

just being really rash and she got

29:23

herself killed. and who knows, maybe she's

29:25

not even considered. To. Be

29:27

actually that she wouldn't be considered to be

29:30

a saint for sure. I'm in so. Yeah.

29:32

But because her means were approved, right? Because

29:34

you six or as we look at we

29:37

look back at it positively and so am

29:39

I. Just think to me as you know,

29:41

it's the same kind of. Yes,

29:43

It's like Thomas Moore and the sense of she

29:45

is someone who's. You. Know the in

29:48

the arena kind of really lang and

29:50

all out there and did something heroic

29:52

that I think needs to be worth

29:54

elevating. Yeah I.

29:57

and i appreciate i'm just gonna play devil's advocate a

29:59

little bit because you acknowledge pretty

30:01

upfront you say there's some examples

30:04

in this book worthy of imitation some

30:06

that are evil why

30:08

wouldn't it be dangerous to give students a book

30:10

that says okay some of this is really good

30:13

advice some of this is evil I'm not going

30:15

to tell you which is which have

30:17

at it well so I think

30:20

the first thing is that if

30:24

you're in any position of leadership I mean

30:27

people are are going to

30:29

employ all of the tactics against

30:32

you Aki Aveli advises

30:34

or that a Han say

30:36

advises or that any of these kind of you

30:40

know quote-unquote bad people are

30:42

advising and so I think you're you're

30:44

just gonna go into it very

30:46

naive if you're not aware of the

30:48

methods and tactics that can

30:50

be used against you and I think

30:54

it's it's the case and I think this is

30:56

sadly the case because we're we're human beings and

30:58

we're fallen and sinful but

31:00

it is a hundred percent true that

31:02

whether you're talking about the church and

31:05

church government governance or whether you're talking

31:07

about the conservative movement or whether you're

31:09

talking about Republican politics like the

31:12

cause can be as noble as possible

31:15

but the reality is that human

31:18

beings are fallen and every single

31:20

thing that that you know

31:22

people will do bad things and

31:24

come after you in every way possible even

31:26

if you're in a worthy context or setting

31:28

and I think it's just far better for

31:30

people to be aware of what could be

31:33

used against you instead of being ignorant of it

31:35

and learn their lesson a hard way yeah

31:38

and I think it begs I guess I'll ask the

31:40

question from the other side

31:44

does being a good faithful

31:46

person make you a better

31:48

leader and it's funny that this comes up

31:50

because actually I had a very spirited debate

31:53

about this with some of the postdocs at

31:55

the Madison program a few weeks ago it

31:57

was sort of like Machiavelli on one side

31:59

Augusta on the other and I

32:01

mean I'm not a PhD so I was kind of doing my best but

32:05

I do not have that I don't

32:07

have the Augustine citations memorized but I

32:09

mean I guess there's sort of a

32:11

biblical perspective which is

32:13

okay Jesus says you know

32:15

it's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle

32:18

than for a rich man to go to heaven you

32:20

could argue that he's sort of promising this religion

32:22

is not going to make you better at your

32:24

job it will probably make you worse and then

32:27

there's kind of a flip side which is more

32:29

yeah like a lot

32:31

of the Western theologians like Aquinas and

32:33

Augustine that you bring in so

32:35

where I guess draw out those debate

32:38

lines for me does your book have a stance

32:41

so on specifically on whether or not being being

32:43

good is a requirement or makes you actually

32:45

equips you to be a better leader yeah so

32:48

in one sense it's

32:53

absolutely true and in the sense of

32:55

you you cannot be I think

32:58

it's the case that you can't be a

33:00

good leader unless you or even

33:02

a great leader unless you're willing to make your

33:04

own you

33:06

know personal interest it's

33:08

not that there's times when your personal interest

33:10

doesn't align with the common good but I

33:12

think you have to be consciously subjecting your

33:15

personal interest in the interest of

33:17

your own particular faction right or

33:20

class to

33:23

the common good and someone can only do

33:25

that if they have you

33:27

know a clear sense of the the moral

33:29

ends that they're pursuing in politics similarly

33:32

with the restraint piece of

33:34

advice you know this is something again

33:36

it's in Machiavelli it's in Catalia

33:39

it's in Aristotle you know it's in

33:41

Thomas Aquinas like there is no realm

33:43

in which you

33:45

can be a good political leader

33:47

without having moral restraint in

33:50

a way that I think is actually

33:52

true you know if you just translate

33:54

that to sports or to brain surgery

33:56

right like to be a professional

34:00

discipline your body in a very

34:03

strong way. Similarly, being a great

34:05

brain surgeon requires decades of study

34:07

and apprenticeship, whatever. So

34:11

in one sense, yeah, the moral qualities are absolutely

34:13

necessary for being a good leader. But

34:16

I would say that there are

34:20

moral scruples that

34:25

I would say depends what you mean

34:27

by good. I

34:30

think there are ways that, I mean, you could

34:32

give historic examples like Justinian,

34:36

he was dealing with

34:38

riots in ancient Byzantium. And

34:41

the rioters were kind of incited

34:43

by one of the senatorial factions.

34:45

They burned down the Javier Sofia.

34:47

They were coming for the

34:49

palace. And even some of the soldiers

34:52

that were part of the palace guard were likely

34:54

on the side of the rioters. And

34:56

so what do you do in a situation

34:58

like that when the whole stability of the

35:00

whole city and the empire is

35:02

hanging in the balance, Justinian wanted

35:05

to flee to the countryside or

35:08

to leave the country for a period

35:10

of time, go into exile and then

35:12

come back and reestablish control. His wife

35:15

Theodora said, no, no, no, it's better

35:17

to die than to give up the

35:19

royal purple, like we need to fight.

35:21

And so he took her advice. He led

35:24

30,000 people into the hippodrome and

35:28

he had them all slaughtered, right? And he put down

35:30

the riots by killing 30,000 people. And

35:32

then he rebuilt the Javier Sofia and restored order.

35:35

And that was the end of it, right? Even

35:38

in a situation like that, he

35:41

killed 30,000 people, right? And

35:43

if you're thinking about the fate of your

35:46

soul, that's

35:48

a lot of blood that's on your hands, you

35:50

know? And so

35:53

you could, and obviously you can

35:55

give a million different hypothetical scenarios. Like

35:57

if it were one, I feel

35:59

like if you... you were to ask people today, many

36:01

of the most people would be uncomfortable with

36:03

with an action like that. Right. But if

36:06

you were to say, okay, it's one guy

36:08

and he's a terrorist and he has a

36:10

bunch of bombs rigged up all over Washington,

36:12

DC, do you lure him

36:14

into I do you lure him on to the

36:17

Washington on the mall in Washington and

36:19

take him out with a sniper thing most people would

36:21

say, well, of course, he's a terrorist and he has

36:23

all these. So like, there's a weird way in which

36:25

the moral calculus changes. I think

36:27

ultimately with just war theory, you

36:29

want kind of whatever, if you're

36:31

the state, right, the response, the

36:34

violent response needs to be in proportion to

36:36

the threat. And so the proportionality, I think

36:38

is big. And part of

36:40

that. So all I'm saying by giving we

36:43

could do these kind of moral dilemmas all

36:45

day long. I

36:47

think the many

36:50

leaders are not super holy personally,

36:52

right. And I think it's because

36:54

in these situations,

36:57

they just act very decisively to do what

37:00

needs to be done to kind of just

37:02

preserve the regime or preserve the state. And

37:05

then they kind of hope that on the back end,

37:07

that they can kind of work things out with God,

37:09

right? Or that they can they

37:11

have a bishop or whoever someone who's sympathetic, and

37:13

they can kind of like, deal

37:15

with some of the moral questions

37:17

later. And so I think

37:21

it's, it's, it's which makes

37:23

it even hard, it's hard to be a ruler

37:25

and many of the great kind of political leaders,

37:27

even American presidents, you know, how many

37:29

of them are in heaven, you know, obviously,

37:32

only God knows, but not many of them

37:34

seem to really have like a, you know,

37:36

serious devout holiness to them. And I

37:38

think that's just because of the profession

37:40

often demands that people make

37:43

a lot of these decisions that are

37:45

in very gray moral territory. And unless

37:47

you're very sensitive to the health of

37:50

your soul, you can get corroded

37:52

by making those choices. I'm

37:54

sorry, because I know that was a really hard question. And I'm

37:57

gonna ask another one that's a little bit edgy. So

38:02

now there are kind of a couple of strong women

38:05

that have come up over the course of our conversation.

38:07

Judas, who I think, I mean,

38:10

for instance, in my AP art history

38:12

class in high schools, like feminist icon,

38:14

Judas cut off the man's head, did

38:16

the whole thing. And just

38:18

saying, and see Adora, another great example, in your

38:21

book, you bring up Christine de Pizan, which is,

38:23

I think, interesting, because

38:25

you are conservative, and,

38:27

you know, passing

38:29

in a female voice is not something that all

38:32

conservatives would necessarily do. Do

38:34

you think that there is

38:37

a link between statesmanship and

38:39

masculinity? Hmm. So

38:42

in one sense, there's

38:44

absolutely a link. And

38:48

I think that's, you know,

38:50

that's obvious in light of the

38:52

fact that kind of most of the,

38:55

I say most, not all,

38:57

because I featured a number of female statesmen

38:59

or advisors. But I think most of the,

39:02

you know,

39:05

great statesmen from the past, you know, have,

39:07

if you go back to kind of the

39:09

education of Cyrus in ancient

39:11

Persia, right, he has a very

39:14

martial education, like it is militaristic.

39:19

It's just something that

39:21

most women, not all, but most women

39:24

probably wouldn't, they wouldn't have done it

39:26

in the ancient world, right. And maybe

39:28

in the modern world, they probably wouldn't

39:30

prefer sort of a martial education where

39:32

for 10 years, you're sleeping outside in

39:35

the public square guarding monuments. And when you're

39:37

not guarding the monuments, you're out with the

39:39

king hunting for days on end, and you're

39:41

basically starving and sleeping out in the elements,

39:44

right. So I think historically,

39:46

a lot of these leaders have been

39:48

military conquerors, in some

39:50

way, shape or form, which,

39:53

which generally means that they're going to

39:55

be men, right, and they're going to

39:58

be explaining sort of embodying I

40:00

think those kind of the

40:02

either traditional male virtues or just kind of

40:04

the general idea of like the king is

40:07

a father to his country or Washington is

40:09

the father of America and so yeah

40:12

so I think there's a way in

40:14

which they embody kind of hopefully the

40:16

ideal aspects of fatherhood. However,

40:19

there's a couple of interesting things

40:21

when you think of women and

40:23

political leadership. The

40:26

one is that I find it quite

40:28

interesting that despite America

40:30

being founded on the idea of

40:32

political equality that

40:35

we haven't had a female president

40:37

in our history yet the ancient

40:39

world which was far more hierarchical

40:41

and far more patriarchal had, you

40:43

know, far more female

40:46

leaders than our own

40:48

modern context based on equality. I

40:51

don't actually know the answer to that puzzle, but

40:53

that's something that kind of has struck me as

40:57

interesting. Is

40:59

that true? That's not surprising because

41:02

I can't think of that many. I mean,

41:05

the ancient history is

41:07

so long and American history is

41:10

so short in comparison. It doesn't

41:12

seem like there have been that many. It

41:15

is unfair to do that. If

41:17

you were to give us another

41:19

thousand years, we probably would have

41:22

some female presidents. But

41:26

yeah, I guess the point is

41:28

when we're thinking of great female

41:30

statesmen, we're mostly thinking of certainly

41:34

more of a monarchical context, right?

41:36

Queen Elizabeth, you know, the first

41:38

and the second, Queen Victoria, Catherine

41:41

the Great, Theodora,

41:44

Judith, Esther, etc.

41:49

And the second thing I would say

41:51

is that there's an interesting quality that

41:53

I have found in female political leadership,

41:56

which is cunning. So

42:00

it strikes me, and this is

42:02

true, I don't know if any

42:05

of your listeners would have watched Game of Thrones

42:07

or if that kind of brings shame on me

42:09

to mention that I'm a fan of Game of

42:11

Thrones. But we

42:13

do see the female characters in Game

42:15

of Thrones, like how they survive, how

42:17

they make it, how they exert their

42:19

influence is by being cunning,

42:21

you know, and hopefully using that kind

42:23

of craftiness for the proper end. So

42:26

there's even kind of almost an element

42:28

of deception, you know,

42:30

this is certainly the case with Judas, that was the

42:32

case with Esther. You see

42:34

this in some of the other kind of female,

42:37

great female leaders. And I think that is

42:39

often because they're often not

42:42

conquerors who are leading armies, right? They

42:44

have to use other skills

42:46

to kind of you to

42:48

get to make their influence have an

42:51

impact. And so they're very adept, they're

42:53

very crafty and how they kind of

42:55

deploy their means to achieve their

42:57

end. And so

42:59

yeah, I don't know, maybe there's something

43:01

about the the Machiavellian tradition is really

43:04

one for the female

43:06

political influencers and leaders. That's

43:09

very interesting. So

43:13

kind of to start to close us out here as

43:15

we're headed towards time, you

43:17

sort of said at the beginning of this

43:19

conversation, you know, we're all a prince in

43:22

our way, and you head ISI, which is

43:24

a student based organization, really.

43:26

So most students are not president

43:28

of the United States, technically,

43:30

none of them are actually. And but

43:34

there are a lot of kind of

43:36

applications for leadership in smaller contexts that

43:38

I think students are pretty regularly confronted

43:40

with. So if you kind of had

43:42

to summarize, you know, based on this

43:44

book, for people in that demographic,

43:46

for people who are students, what

43:49

are some of the biggest

43:51

takeaways about how to take

43:53

these leaders and advisors from

43:55

the distant past and totally different

43:57

societies and say, I'm

44:00

doing something when I'm leading a club, when I'm trying

44:02

to be a leader in the classroom, when I'm trying

44:04

to start a career in which I'm going to have

44:06

some kind of leadership role. What are the

44:09

takeaways? Sure. That's a great

44:11

question. And I actually just got back from an ISI

44:13

student seminar in Dallas where we spent

44:15

three days reading through this book with

44:17

students and trying to make it a

44:19

little bit concrete for them. Then

44:22

I guess I'll ask, what did they like? That's maybe the

44:24

better question. That's a good question. They

44:29

really liked Xenophon and Cyrus. That was

44:31

like, it kept coming back to Xenophon.

44:35

They liked Charles de Gaulle as well. So

44:40

a few pieces of practical advice. Cicero

44:43

is actually great for practical advice.

44:46

So one of Cicero's

44:48

points is that we must work

44:50

harder at the things that we

44:52

are better suited at and better

44:54

suited for. So

44:56

this is basically the idea, which I think

44:58

is a little counterintuitive, that you

45:00

should actually spend more time focusing on

45:02

your strengths than on your weaknesses. So

45:04

if you have an extra hour a day, devote

45:07

that to doing something that you're excellent at instead

45:09

of trying to improve in an area that you're

45:11

not as well suited for. Because

45:14

when you invest your time in your

45:16

strengths, you're going to see exponential growth.

45:19

If you spend the best time trying to improve weaknesses, you're going

45:21

to see only marginal growth. And

45:25

so that's probably even decent advice

45:27

for beating a sin

45:29

or a vice in your life. Instead

45:31

of just trying with all of your will to

45:34

resist the vice, it's probably better

45:36

advice to focus on

45:38

some aspect of piety that you're better

45:40

at and really lean into that. And

45:42

by doing so, you may not even

45:44

find yourself being drawn to that vice.

45:47

And so I think that's just in terms of picking

45:49

a major, in terms of starting out in

45:52

your career, you might get a job where you

45:54

have to do a lot of things and some of them you're

45:56

not going to be good at. But I think the quicker that

45:58

you can find your own niche. and delegate the

46:00

things you're not good at to other people, the

46:02

faster you're going to kind of

46:04

rise at your institution. Another

46:07

piece of advice, and it's again,

46:09

it's a kind of a cliche,

46:11

but Cicero says that

46:13

the shortcut to greatness is

46:16

to start acting

46:18

like the person that you want to become.

46:20

So it's really almost a fake it till

46:22

you make it sort of approach, wherein,

46:26

you know, if you start pretending to

46:28

be the type of person you want

46:30

to be, pretty soon actually,

46:32

you'll convince other people that you

46:34

are that person. And then as

46:36

the other people start to affirm and

46:38

see that in yourself, you yourself will

46:41

eventually be persuaded. So there's an element

46:43

of self kind of trickery, just start

46:45

acting like the person you want to

46:47

be. And then I

46:49

think another one, again, right out of Cicero,

46:51

is that you essentially rise

46:53

to the level of those that you associate

46:56

with. So if you want to become seen

46:58

as being famous and wise and public life,

47:00

you should spend your time with people that

47:02

are genuinely virtuous, right? And all of a

47:04

sudden people will look at you from the

47:06

outside and they will start to

47:08

associate you with the people that you spend

47:11

your time with. Most

47:13

people, you know, I think the world really, it

47:16

works on relationships. Relationships are the

47:19

capital that matters even more than

47:21

money, right? Even more than your

47:23

pedigree. And if you have the right people

47:25

that are going to bat for you, every

47:28

door will be open that you can imagine, you know?

47:30

And if you don't have people in your corner, if

47:32

you're trying to go it alone, or if you have

47:34

the wrong people in your corner, you're not gonna get

47:36

anywhere. And so it strikes me that the people who

47:39

are most connected are the ones that most get ahead.

47:41

I think there's a way that you can do all

47:43

of these things without still within

47:45

the context of sort of a, you know, ambition

47:48

that's kind of operating within

47:50

a Christian or otherwise religious context.

47:53

Well, Johnny, this has been amazing. I promise I

47:55

did read the book, but I still learned so

47:57

much listening to you. You're an absolute fount of

47:59

wisdom. So the book will be linked in the show

48:01

notes for the listeners. Please do check it out. Thank

48:04

you so much, Anika. That was a lot of fun. And good

48:06

questions, too. I really, it's just some tough ones. Well, there you

48:08

have it, Madisonians. It's linked in the

48:10

show notes. You should absolutely go check it out. We'll

48:13

see you next time. We'll

49:00

see you next week.