Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On Richard John Neuhaus 20150315

120,000 people attend this every year that it happens and is held every weekend, booktv offers programming focus on nonfiction authors and books. Keep watching for more here on cspan2 and watching of our past programs online at booktv. Org. Randy boyagoda is next on booktv. He talks about the activism and political influence of the late Catholic Priest Richard John Neuhaus. During this event in new york city professor bordo go to sit down with author and former New York Times review editor Sam Tanenhaus. Welcome, everybody. Do i wait for you . Welcome everybody. Its really great to be able to have an opportunity to host regular booktalk by authors that write about topics of culture and politics, and it especially good when the topic is from the founder of the magazine. [inaudible] randy is an accomplished novelist. Tonight Sam Tanenhaus agrees to interview randy and pull out from him aspects of the biography of new house. Welcomed them both. [applause] at my good ear . I shout. Randy boyagoda, you are a novelist. You have very interesting background and your writing about Richard John Neuhaus. How did we get to this topic . I started working on this book in some ways without even realizing it in 2009. Shortly after he died i wrote a profile of him for a torontobased magazine. Im from toronto and it was basically an essay that argued heres the most influential canadian born intellectual in the past 50 years that none of you ever heard of. So i wrote this review of his life and work and then i left at that. At that point i was in the midst of a terribly unreadable second academic monograph, and as a rescue from that sort of project, i realized that he it was a story, a story about a man and his faith and his kind of involvement in a dramatic time in American Life. I thought heres a story i think needs telling. I left it at that, and one night as these things do happen with books a lightbulb came on, why dont i write the biography . Than a person, lots of people would write his biography. So i emailed i emailed George Weigel, his very good friend who i knew by sheer coincidence because my wife went to college with his daughter, gwyneth. George weigel, special for audience watching on television extreme distinguished catholic intellectual and papal biographer, best known for his book a witness to hope, the biography of john paul ii. And many number books since then. I wrote him and i just said is anyone doing this . And he said no. Authorial coast is clear is how we put it. So you didnt have to be to back no, exactly. I wasnt doesnt happen at the church with across waving it to keep everyone away. Let me ask you something, randy what was your first introduction to father neuhaus has eluded became cold . Many here would only begin as a lutheran pastor and had a quite remarkable conversion to catholicism. When we first aware of them . I could remember the exact moment actually. I was at a seminary in toronto visiting this priest with friends with my buddy. This priest had interest in literary matters. He said, what you doing . I said im in this localization of the rereading of faulkner. And his response was, why would you devote your life to a drunken . When he finished saying that, he then said what are you doing reading all this postcolonial globalization three . You should read this and he gave me a copy of first things magazine and that was a really important moment for me because what it demonstrated to a cradle catholic because it breached the gulf between my mothers catholicism, rosary beads and all the rest of it, and then intellectual life which was all about globalization a theory, theres nothing in between. You do one or the other, you do them both but they should never meet. Wall of separation. I realized through first things you could be a cosmopolitan minded intellectual for whom matters of faith could inform your life and the world around you. Now tell us who really neuhaus was, how he came to occupy the place to be. You say repeatedly in the biography, sure many of you have already read it or will be reading it soon, he was a fixture in the pages of the time very distinguished New York Times editor who worked with Richard John Neuhaus. It was a dominant public figure rose, then fell happens often but how did he become the fate was . Where did he start and quickly, a brief summary, what are the steps in the neuhaus journey . There are two things to think about right away. What would be his primary vocation was he was a man of god. Then it was what does this mean . Out whether this out . He was hungry and ambitious. When was he born in . Born in 1936, and broke, ontario, into a large lutheran family. His father was this imposing, rather authoritarian figure i think in the small town in the middle of canada who spoke german . Thats right. Im a tiny bit term myself. I can say that with some authority. Seventh of eight kids in . Very good memory. You grew up in is very lutheran household where his father would refer when he was cutting a Roast Chicken on a sunday afternoon, would refer at the end of the chicken as the popes nose as he cut it off the tail end of the chicken basically. But he grew up in this world and from there he had this kind of vagabond life. He was in nebraska. He was in texas and then finally he made it to seminary in st. Louis. Soon thereafter kind of discovered an intellectual light those aligned with this faith commitments. This led him to come to discover also he wanted to do more than just read and write about it. He wanted to do something about it. This is partly a sort story of a man of faith, a man of god actually ventures very boldly out into the public arena Public Square as he called it in a very famous way. One of his idols was the reverend doctor moved luther king dr. Martin luther king. He knew him slightly exaggerated. To a degree yes. Wanted to live that kind of life. Why was that happening in america in the 1960s, 1950s what was causing that . I think the key here have to do with his emerging from st. Louis in the 1950s into his first kind of a real call, as they say in the Lutheran Church into a poor black and hispanic parish in williamsburg. So obvious question i have how does a lutheran pastor end up with a majority africanamerican congregation . Are there that many lutheran africanamerican . The short answer is white flag. Basically this was an historic lutheran parish in williamsburg that over the course of the early 12th century really in the mid century demographic shifted significant. The neighborhood it was in shifted significantly in the largest Housing Project the first major Housing Project in america inspired the book, a tree grows in brooklyn, was across the street quite literally from the wings for projects, right across the street from the church. Just as the original white demographic of the very and that was what german irish . Mostly german in the 1940s and 50s. Neuhaus shows up there in 61 and he realizes so used to 25 of out of . More are less. He looks around and he sees an incredibly impoverished place. As you say prehipster. Very prehipster. When i went to visit the church i think has been a dollar on a Peanut Butter sandwich at a hipster place around the corner from this church. It was an amazing Peanut Butter sandwich, believe you me. But nevertheless, he gets there, and its a majority black parish. Its postjim crow. The Civil Rights Movement is just emerging now spent the freedom rides 1961. Thats right. And neuhaus is coming out of the church that has the majority terms at least at the point a rather delicate if not allergic reaction to public engagement. A special on the race issue i think at that point. Point. When you say public engagement, you mean what politics, social issues . This kind of two kingdom theology in missouri tradition would suggest there is the kingdom of god and kingdom of god in the kingdom of god and the kingdom of man, and by one never the two shall meet. This was not his thinking at all. He gets involved in through his parish life with questions or basically the dignity of the human person as it is being lived out by a majority black population around them. That was kind of his first will discuss first involved in politics beyond the church. So these are de facto segregation issue. The Civil Rights Movement is moving out of the deep south, coming know if and theres a different kind of racial disharmony. Absolutely. So neuhaus gets very interested in this and any seas to your point, he sees this example with more luther king. Is already got involved with a small Lutheran Organization that was committed to kind of racing civilcivil rights questions. They key here for him one of the things i learned from researching, he did a summer internship at a parish in detroit and one of the moments that can instruct him was in detroit on a sunday morning sunday 11 a. M. And neuhaus watched in detroit late 1950s, early 1960s, 59 perhaps it is sunday morning right before the service would begin a series of ushers would come out on to the steps of the church with money and any black parishioner who showed up, they would give the money for the cat to go to black church. This is how they were at that point it with the question of a mixedrace congregation. Its almost a perfect demonstration of white guilt inaction. Political walking money Walking Around money. Just take a cab to the black church. Dont come any. We want you to go to church just not here right . Neuhaus reacted against this immersed himself in urban ministry and that in williamsburg in 1961 through 1969, that involved his life tempered him with black and hispanic parish. He grew out of it into more national movement. Let me ask you a really uninformed, naive question. Very educated audience in these matters will find amusing but i really dont know the answer to it. In this day and age come in 2015 if somebody is coming through the ministry being ordained, the missouri whatever ministry, with a be as likely to have the range of experiences that neuhaus did he also spent time in chicago . He spent time in chicago. Hes doing detroit chicago st. Louis, texas nebraska and is going to williamsburg after starting in ontario. So in some ways i dont mean to be disrespectful but theres something very worldly about all of us. He is seeing america at this crucial moment. Is that no part of the journey that religious person will take . With us taking it some sort of global terms no i dont think so. But it wasnt in either. One of the things i realize from speaking to one of his classmates from seminary, what set him apart was his travels intellectually and physically were very different than them people emerging from small town chairman midwestern southern texas, lets say life and going straight into seminary. You do your time there and you go off to a congregation and off you go. He set himself apart even then because in the 1950s hes reading george santa ana. Is already physically and intellectually elsewhere. I would say to your question basically, with a cosmopolitan such as he had been norm for any given seminary in . Inmost licit traditional congregations or confessions . Probably not. What it was and then either. Guests. So he had the authority to be able to choose these different stations in different places . He took the authority. Very aggressive, persuasive guy spent he presumed he had the authority. No one stopped him them either. He kept on going. Im thinking of a counterexample gary welsh who is also a brilliant catholic intellectual born in the land raised in wisconsin, does the seminary in st. Louis Xavier University in ohio comes to work with bill buckley and thats the end of the journey. He does other things, but he had to be released from his bowels when he decided to become a journalist instead. But one doesnt have the sense from his memoirs, and hes written two memoirs, written a lot about his own journey that he was summoned to seeking out come as a journalist he did, as a journalist sought out wide and diverse experience but not necessarily as a religious man. Its interesting, neuhaus got there early. You can suggest in the book he had almost an intuitive sense for where the cultural and Political Action was. He could sniff out the action of a getaway to get the. One of his early phrases that he kind of obsessed about i think in his early writings he could quote and market the metaphors that shape the public conscious. Cleared he wanted to be one of these guys by the complaint but everyone else who could do the. Usability was identified in any given moment, lets say the Antiwar Movement antivietnam war movement spent he looked around and thought to himself, this significant antivietnam war foam in American Life, and a large part of it is being kind of taken on in the campuses and by the secular hardline left and emerging, but what if youre a person of faith who is against this war . There is no context for you to speak out about this. This led to his cofounding clergy and laity against the war in vietnam. That was his realizing nobody speak about this in higher order of religious terms. Heres a way for me to get involved in public life to make first person demonstration of what it means to be in this case against the war in your first principles. That was what he could do perhaps better than anyone else at that point. Thats the month when he became a media celebrity. I did not know that the greater journalist francine to plessy grayheaded written in the new yorker, the fine to send . Disobedience. Which was looking at clerics and the different anti a different style of antiwar protest their organizing. Neuhaus at this point is very much but she holds them up. Right. Who else was in there with them . William sloane coffin wouldve been there. Abraham daschle. Harvey cox was there. I think kaufman was very important and the rain into trouble with their new yorker cardinal whose name something is escaping me. Spellman spent youve got the right audience. [laughter] let me ask a question and this is something we were talking about before. We just that you were brought up name checked, some very big public figures. If you were around in the 1960s and 70s you knew all these people were. You get what theyve had to say about American Life. Everybody to. They were on the covers of magazines, quoted. You call of neuhaus, you get a quote. Debates about the vietnam war. Its a very big deal. What do we have today . Yes spirit is there anything like a . We dont mean powerful, influential, religious people in politics. But intellectuals, writers and thinkers who are dominating what new is called the Public Square. Do we have a new version of that today . And if so whats it like . And if not, what happened . Why are those people not there . You are right. Theres all mission coming out of neuhaus is divided up to that kind of distinctive voice. You could point to first things as one place this was captured on tape by. A change in the culture, the political culture. You are right. When did that change happen and what isnt about . Its about a more that this American Life where you can have, people very capable very adult, very persuasive when youre speaking to people who believe the same way they do in both the same way to do. What could neuhaus do that very few could, i think. He could speak beyond lets say, a conservative christian audience in terms of informed by his conservative Christian Formation but they could speak and, the perfect example of this would be the economist debate i mentioned late in the book where he gets into a debate sponsored by speech the economist magazine. Yes. Whether religion should be involved in American Public life. In new york city a great majority said no no involvement. Then father neuhaus begins speaking. By the end of the debate, guess what . They are all persuaded otherwise. He could speak beyond it. But to your question we can point to different voices i think that have an authority but its a different kind of Institutional Authority. The new times, i think in many ways talk about, this will interest many viewers where hes very gifted off and commerce of in your time. I spent about a month going through his papers but how do know he had a healthy ego . Get printed every single email he ever wrote, presuming someone would go through them at some point. My fingers were destroyed when summer going through this. There was an email from a man named charles a row to father neuhaus to say thank you so much, i have this on ross who is now in college at harvard and its this crazy liberal place and your magazine is so valuable and informative. Might help move toward some family conversion if im not mistaken but it gave ross the version of what is describing of my own experiencing graduate school he gave them a context and a set of terms to demonstrate you know what, you can believe in god and you could read the new yorker. You can write for the new times come all these things can have a synthesis. What we have now . A great columnist for the times able to do this but where is this Institutional Authority come from . Your first question about people today. It comes from the New York Times. It doesnt come from any religious confession. In other words we would be hardpressed i think to find a religious leader whose Institutional Authority is religious commanding a National Voice the way someone like Richard John Neuhaus or no coffin or the reverend Martin Luther king, always reminded us hes a baptist preacher right . Theres no what i think today who can do that. Rick warren can get on tv and wonderful things and really organize those who are interested in the brick warren approach to evangelical christianity but hes not speaking to anybody on that john that confession spent talk about neuhaus as a writer. You describe in a very interestingly how he began as a Norman Mailer imitated, very macho a lot of name dropping and then he actually evolved into a more sophisticated writer who actually made some important contributions to policy. Mediating structures, i did know that was his phrase. Every time you read the phrase religion in public life this is Richard John Neuhaus. Im so glad you asked that question because as a writer and critic myself part of what really interests me in this was to watch the development of a writer, a writer finding his voice. When did they find a . I was in 1984 naked Public Square big medium structures and spoke to about people i was a large part had to do with his good friend peter berger and their ability to write that together. But that phrase the naked Public Square, this kind of the frames the what does he mean by that . The naked Public Square . By the naked Public Square he means a public life that is aggressively and intentionally shorn of any reference to a specifically judeochristian argument for who we are how we flourish how we order our laws. Thats what he meant by that. But when that happened, when he got that phrase it down which kicked up in the public consciousness in the middle of the 84 election, when that happened his prose i think finally calm down. Like before then in the 60s and 70s like mailer every other sentence the swinging for this fence is. Hes trying to come up with that one phrase hes good at it right . He was a natural writer. He was a remarkable writer and prolific writer. 10,000 words a month. He really found his voice when that phrase became whats funny is didnt hes running the new Reagan Administration early 85, and its going to phrase as if its a normal phrase now the naked Public Square. Its amazing that transition moment. But as a writer, that i think hes been called by some people the first blogger. The ways, i would say this we all love those moments, right . Hes funny punching. You love love them, you hate them. Youre reading either way but hes a far more supple rider in his best work than is kind of date stamped punches against liberal bishops would suggest. I think naked Public Square, a dispassionate sensibility somebody able to speak about how we ought to order our life together whether you are a militant atheist or whether you are an ultra montanas catholic. You can say heres an account for how religion should matter to our lives. We are not in a theocracy. Nor should it be a fully naked Public Square. Instead theres a complex, vital center, and thats what he sees religion playing a part. I want you to go through a few things and then well take some questions. His book, as i lay down talk about faulkner. Great novel. Whats that about . Im glad you asked me that. His personal life i mean he almost died in early january january 1993 from a ruptured cold related to a tumor he had. He wrote this kind of beautiful beautiful first person account of the dignity of dying basically, or of nearly dying and the dignity of suffering. Thats where you remember for all the way we talk as an oppressive political person, and impressive intellectual, he was a pastor. He was a man of god and that book is 240 pages of beautiful preaching on the art of living and dying well. Did he consciously take his title from faulkner . I think he might argue that faulkner took it from him and didnt realize it at the time. So two quick things we need to cover. One is the move from just in simple terms left to right. And its not caused by issues many would suppose not rule the way. Thats not what moved him. So this is 1975 or something . Yes. So two things in 72 row the way we think thats good why he became a conservative. No. In the 70s you could be a hard charging liberal as Teddy Kennedy wickedness and be fully prolife. Prolife. For neuhaus it was two things by the mid 70s. It was his sense that mainlined protestants and had abandoned theology orthodoxy in continuity with the term from years before, hartford, the harbor statement a very controversial moment where he said heres whats wrong with american christianity today, Time Magazine thought of it almost as Martin Luther banging the declaration. There were liberals the and he went right after them in a hard way. That was one. The other way, to me in some ways more timely, the war in vietnam and. Theres a communist government now in vietnam and they start increasing religious minorities right away. Neuhaus sees this. This isnt what he was marching into and shutting for. He goes to his fellow friends on the left and he says to them, look, look whats happening. We need to write a statement in the times, go to the u. N. And bang on doors in protest. I think Phyllis Schlafly came out of that movement and it also had to do with the kind of war on religion that came from a communist recream, and one more regime and one more question is the one i think we can end with because its so important sure. And then well take questions. And that is the con version his deciding to become a catholic yes. Which very much pleased the vatican. Yes. John paul ii was told over lunch. A close friend of cardinal oconnor. Close friend. I once wrote a book about whitaker chambers. Chambers didnt become a catholic but always acted like one, really wanted to become one. Right. So i think you use the phrase cryptocatholicism, there was that side of him that was always drawn to it. So so he would argue yes, he points to the memory he had as a child of this interest in this catholic family down the street the spooner boys. Even then as a little boy he already knew thats the kind of are you kidding me moment. Yeah. I think he was informed that argued lutheranism properly understood was a Reform Movement internal to the universional cat luck universal Catholic Church. And by the late 80s neuhaus had come to the conclusion that this was in a severe minority which really was a branch of american how many lutherans are there in america do we know . Its no longer the Sleeping Giant Teddy Roosevelt predicted i dont know myself. There might be somebody in the crowd who would know. 89 million. There we go. A lot more than the jews. Yeah. Thats a theological element. And i kind of criticize neuhaus to a degree for emphasizing the ecclesial reasons for why he converted over the political and cultural. Yeah, kind of wanting it both ways there. Yeah. I wasnt persuaded by this. By the late 80s neuhaus realized that a kind of full account of democratic life, of anticommunism, of being against sort of in cold war terms a neoconservative account any attempt to demonstrate the goods of democracy finally in religious terms the arguments were being made often enough by the Catholic Church by john paul ii. The big moment is his book which is his anticipatory apology for why he was becoming cat luck. So there are catholic. So there are these larger developments that were political, historical and cultural in nature, and demographic, and all of those alongside the ecclesial arguments the reason why by 1990 i am going to become as he put it im going to become the catholic i already was. [laughter] in other words, the world is changing im already there, now i realize the fullest version of this. He said nothing from his lutheran past that would sort of align with this is denied. This is the greater fulfillment of it. And out of this came the celebrated magazine. So theres take some questions if we have them. Yes, sir. Yes. Father neuhaus was [inaudible] back in the day. Where was that . Right over there. On 14th. Right near here. Yeah. His sermons as well as a number of his public discussions. He obviously, was many different places religiously, politically in many terms and always searched for an internal core. We did [inaudible] for a good number of years now. What would you say, what would he is say about the world today . What would he contribute . And, obviously, thats i would say its maybe [inaudible] what would he say . What would he contribute if we were to get back b sure. To this world. So everyone heard the question . Yes yeah. What would father neuhaus make of the inevitable question. On my walk here today for this very discussion somebody stopped me on the street and said, arent you sanjay gupta . The cnn doctor guy . I said no [laughter] look at my arm i dont have the confidence to say what dr. Gupta thinks about this mans arm, so what im trying to say i cant ventriloquize Richard John Neuhaus, but what i can say is this backed he do what could he do . What would he care about . Christians in the middle easts right now, that would be something of special interest to hum. He would be making arguments you know, beyond what first things magazines already making, but what he could do is two things. He could translate theological arguments into pluckilyaccessible terms and this matters, into sound bites. He would be on meet the press doing this. Advancing arguments well beyond the confines of a sizable readership with first things magazine. What he would actually be saying again, we can only predict or presume. The point isnt what he would be saying its where and and how he would be saying it and no one else is would he have a huge twitter follow, do you think . No, i dont think hed have a huge twitter following. Yes, sir. He took a tremendous thrashing for that article the end of democracy a tremendous thrashing. Yes. He lost friends. But it seems hes been vindicated many many times over yeah. Randy, talk about the controversy. Norman was very much p involved. It was a huge controversy, a huge controversy. Howd it start . Whats the genesis . The genesis was here an editorial meeting in may of 1996 i guess it would. What are our big things to think about, talk about in the coming years, and this is right after that assisted suicide decision out of oregon i think. Thats what was kind of the initial catalyst. [inaudible] there we go. Yes. And that inspired this kind of round table conversation. Importantly, the Editorial Board at that point peter berger wasnt there, mitch wasnt there, rich around [inaudible] budget in the room. And this were on the original board. Thats right. So what calm out of this was this came out of this was this issue basically asking do we have an illegitimate state because of the usurpation of democratic legislative Decision Making by an activist judiciary . And neuhaus at the time, i dont think, realized just how incendiary this was going to be. And how prophetic. Yes and no. I mean yes in lots of ways we can make this case, but were still living in a functioning democracy. Im sure we could all argue otherwise, but the next time you go to vote, tell me youre being prevented from doing so. We can have lots of arguments about this, but my point here simply is neuhaus at the time didnt realize himself whether you argue whether it was prophetic or not is one thing but he didnt realize how much of an explosion this was going to be. And it gets timed right around 96 and the election, and right away he loses a series of friends, and the subscription rate goes up well now, be specific. How far . I ask rich vaughn, you cant buy that i read every single issue of first things magazine for biography i couldnt get my hands on a hard copy of that one. Because it doesnt exist. Not even library of congress . Oh, i dont know, i think we have one here. I couldnt find one. Its like a balk ruth is there an accusation here randy . Youre saying thats been censored or hidden . Enter no, no no. [laughter] well, wait. Tell us what some of the frenzy was. Norman po,thorits said youre throwing bombs. So peter berger, this was the big one perhaps his closest and coauthor. Friend in the 60s provided him with that coauthor, collaborator on a lot of things, he walked away from that friendship. He had a very elegant way of putting it when i met him over opera cake once to talk about neuhaus. And he said, you know, at that point after this issue we just started reminiscing when we would get together. In other words berger thought were too far apart, we cannot see things still mattered. But its a reminiscent friendship not a what should we cook up next friendship. You know bill buckley figured tried his best to mediate because this turned into a divisive fire fight. Right. Talk about the mediating structure, bill buckley oneman a oneman mediating structure, exactly. What was his role in this . He was trying to say these questions need to be asked, but asking the question doesnt necessarily mean the answer is yes. Didnt norman have a very pungent response . Yeah. Asking [laughter] you know, questioning whether or not increst is acceptable incest is acceptable you dont even ask whether its acceptable. You is the question when incest ought to be okay its not because youre teeing up a great attack exactly. We already have enough small features in this world. So, and it was shocking to us us. Now, here is a guy who cosmopolitan yes. Had been in all the big political battles for many many years. Sure. Talking about 35 years of influence. Sure. Civil rights a brach from the light from the left to the right. Hes even changed his faith. And he was surprised . Why . What was he not prepared for . He was not prepared for the intensity of negative reaction from his friends on from his allies. From his allies from his longtime allies. Who stood by him . That shocked him. By and large, i would say it would be the more catholic and more conservative kind of christian members of the circle, people like obviously George Weigel would be one very straightforward example joseph stonebrand supported hill. Who attacked him otherwise, yeah. Explain who he was. So he was a one time or longtime, i guess member of the bill buckley kind of group of National Review who over the course of his life grew ever more interested in antisemitic devout. Devout, serious catholic. And a good writer too. He hammered on neuhaus. Called him a political operator with a roman collar after he converted to ca catholicism. On this one he had it right and i dont think this filled neuhaus with great happiness [laughter] at least we got joe on our side. Let me ask you Something Else no, but one last thing with this. Yeah. This would be one of the few examples where you could see someone really requesting a decision. He very rarely, i think thought maybe i shouldnt have done that. Second thoughts. They happened at night in the apartment talking to nichterline, and he kind of yelled at him, and nichter orline is a very moderate [inaudible] he was against it. He was, you know, the lone voice against it back in may. Theres other questions as well though. Yes. We do want to get to other questions. Yes, sir. What did father neuhaus think of the Christian Coalition and what did he think of Ronald Reagan . I think father neuhaus had an ambivalent p lent attitude towards the christian colugs. In 94 he spoke at repeated road to Victory Campaign events, but i think what i noticed at least in my research about is he would go there and rip on them for putting their trust in princes. He would go there, oh, heres father neuhaus hes going to bless the Christian Coalitions efforts here to basically get the vote out for the Republican Party, and he got up and basically said, what are you doing . Obviously, he could be partisan in lots of different ways, but he was very concerned, i think about the idea that a perfect alignment of your Party Politics and your faith commitments could happen. And so the contrarian element to him as well. Right. Well thats in the introduction, the sort of prologue to the book. Thats right. And then on reagan, you know, he was very keen on reagan and had a lot of kind of minor personal contact with him. Not as mump as with not as much as with george w. Bush, lets say, but i think he saw reagan entirely in positive terms not least just because of his strong anticommunism. And i think on that and i think because reagan was probable more open than not that religions place in public life. And because neuhaus could tell in 84, he was kind of johnny on the spot in a sense. I get the sense that the moral Majority Movement which was so important in some ways to the 1980 election, thats still argued by scholarses 84 comes up again, and i think neuhaus showed up and became a kind of welcome figure in the reagan white house. And thats the soul angry that hes not allowed to speak at our event. But i think he saw a certain openness to john paul iis anticommunism and morally against the soviet union, and he was supportive of that. But i wouldnt say he was nearly as interested in e reagan as he was in jimmy carter or george w. Bush. Tell us about jimmy carter because that he was fascinated by carter. Yeah. In the mid 70s writing for world view magazine one of the kind of precursors of first things in some ways. Neuhaus, he was really excited about carter. And this was in no small part, i think, a reaction to watergate. Here was someone who could openly confidently speak out of a christianformed morality about matters of public significance. And for neuhaus, and, you know, eye ironically so, too george bush many years later. But he wrote a few really big pieces about the promise of the carter presidency and then everything fell apart over the conference on the family or the families when explain the difference, family and families. Yes. So he was appointed by president carter to the White House Council on the family, in this effort to make sense of the situation of the American Family in the late 1970s with any number of domestic pressures on it not unlike the conference that lbj had with moynihan, right . Yeah, yeah, exactly. The crisis of the American Family. Exactly. And neuhaus realized very quickly that kind of on the harder Democratic Left was arguing that the term family it was exclusionary because it presumed a hetero [inaudible] of the family, and neuhaus saw that as abandonment in sheer demographic terms of the people who really needed some attention here. And he walked away from the conference as a result you mean it became about elites instead of about the poor . Absolutely. Exactly. Other questions . We cant p ventriloquize as you say, what he would think about in a very deep voice. [laughter] after his death. What about the timing . He died in january of 0. Yes. The month that obama was inaugurated, so he lived long enough to see the end of the bush presidency which at the time was viewed in highly negative terms. Yeah. He saw that obama was elected and was going to be the next president. His last book was kind of dark. Ive read the first half of your biography, i havent gotten to the second half yet so i dont know what you have to say about this. He died in the end, i should tell you. [laughter] [inaudible] yeah, thats right. But what did father neuhaus think about all these projects kind of crashing and burning toward the end of his life . So they didnt necessarily crash and burn. They would only crash and burn if they were entirely aligned with a Republican Party platform, so they didnt crash and burn. There were institutions that he was sort of involved with that live, exist, thrive. Please everyone, whos watching subscribe my moms watching, please subscribe, mom. The idea behind first things in that project was late 2008, this is interesting to me, of course in political terms father neuhaus would have very little to say positively about president obama. When obama gave that jeremiah that postjeremiah wright address in philadelphia on race, neuhaus wrote a very respectful piece about it kind of admiring this was the only person who could do this basically credibly. Speaking in racial terms. Not in political terms. Not, certainly on questionably life or foreign policy. But by late 2008 he was in his last major public appearance he gave a talk, and the expectation was its the middle of the election, you know its october 2008, hes going to get up and basically slay the democrats for us. And he, he got up, and instead of doing that, he kind of just had a more melancholic set of observations about the difficulties of trying to pursue your faith commitment through politics. Perhaps it was because he was seeing this wasnt working out in the current election cycle. And if im not mistaken, his last reference he was talking to someone at Immaculate Conception in late 2008. And someone was saying what should we do about the very clear prospect of an Obama Presidency and his response was, pray. And that strikes me as a reasonable and kind of discuss passionate response dispassionate response and a higher order response. At that point in his life i think he was already moving beyond the kind of ratatat move against an obama it could be an ambiguous response. Of course. But well, i think he would want us to pray for him. Absolutely. Other questions . Gee, randy that was it. I knocked it out with the pray. A terrific and important book, already getting some excellent reviews. Thank you. Must be happy about that. Yes, very much so. And thanks for the conversation. Thank you sam. Thank everybody for coming. [applause] a great conversation. The books are for sale and 20. Cheaper than amazon. Com. [laughter] and you get the bonus of getting it signed by the author. So please, please buy it and subscribe to first things magazine. There we go. Thank you very much, everyone. [applause] [inaudible conversations]