Not infrequently, I have the opportunity to talk with Richard Brookhiser and Ramesh Ponnuru (veteran National Review-ers, veteran journalists, veteran writers). I thought it would be very pleasant to do it on the air — to record a Q&A with the two of them: which we have, here. We talk about NR, the media, politics, conservatism — a host of things we are interested in, and involved in.

“What is the place of National Review in American life?” That is my opening question. Ramesh says that our job is to bring “right reason” to politics and culture. We are charged with assessing the national condition and, if possible, improving it.

As Ramesh notes, William F. Buckley Jr. often used the phrase “right reason,” or “recta ratio.” He titled one of his collections “Right Reason.” It came out in 1985, hitting me at a crucial time. I devoured and loved that book.

Rick Brookhiser adds that NR has traditionally had another role: that of trying to keep conservatives and Republicans straight. Today, there is daunting work to do, as Rick explains, in candid terms.

Ramesh says that the future of conservatism is up for grabs — the very meaning of conservatism is up for grabs. (In 2020, I wrote an essay titled “ ‘Conservative’: A Term Up for Grabs.”) He further cites Eliot to the effect that there are no lost causes, or gained causes, either. You keep plugging away. The weather changes (for good or ill).

By the way, would WFB be a big deal today? A hit? Would people stand for all that erudition, and all those foreign phrases, and all that graciousness toward Harriet Pilpel? Rick says that Bill would have a smaller audience, a niche audience — but an audience nonetheless.

Yes. Schubert has an audience. Not as big as Coldplay’s — but a devoted and grateful one.

These days, there is a great demand for the visual. Even podcasts are being produced as videos (although mine are not). (“You have a face for radio,” goes an old line.) Is this bad news for ink-stained wretches like us? My colleagues and I toss this around.

Here is another question: Are comments sections deleterious to journalism? Should serious publications have them? Do they have a bad effect on a writer’s health, particularly a young writer’s health? Are traditional letters sections — edited — better?

(That’s a bundle of questions, to be sure.)

Rick went to Yale, Ramesh to Princeton. Though Rick is a well-known historian, his major was English. Though Ramesh is a well-known political journalist, his major was history. Who were their big professors?

Rick mentions Maynard Mack, an expert on Shakespeare, Pope, et al. — a great scholar. Also, Rick had Garry Wills, who knew the worth of George Washington, and made his students aware of it too.

In political theory, Ramesh had both Robert P. George and Cornel West. In history, he had Robert Darnton for the French Revolution, William Chester Jordan for the High Middle Ages, James M. McPherson for the Civil War . . .

Beat that (as WFB would say).

Back to journalism — grubby journalism — for a minute. In our present environment, people often mistake journalists for politicians, and it’s the journalists’ fault. Why? Because they often act like politicians: cultivating constituencies, tending to their “base,” toeing lines, riling up the crowd. They might as well be on the stump.

Ramesh and Rick have enlightening things to say about this, as about our other issues.

How did they get to be conservatives, by the way? Well, for one thing, they read Buckley early on. And what are the qualities or ideas that make up their conservatism? Rick says, “Respect for what’s best about America. Seriousness about the world. Respect for people, for what they’re owed as people.”

Ramesh agrees and has an addition: “Respect for achievements of the past and a sense that real progress in the human condition comes from building on those traditions — and a specific sense that our political inheritance from the Founders is particularly valuable and worth preserving.”

I ask a few fluffy-ish questions, but ones I like: favorite presidents (spoiler alert: Washington and Lincoln); other favorite political figures, from any time or place (Burke, Lafayette).

In recent years, I have said I have two devout wishes, among others: that people recover a proper sense of patriotism; and that they recover a proper sense of manliness (as distinct from brutishness and belligerence). What are my colleagues’ wishes, or a couple of them?

Ponnuru: “a revival of a marriage culture in our country” — a culture in which people are more willing to get married and to honor the commitment.

Man, that would be revolutionary.

Brookhiser: “I wish people would count their blessings.”

I am grateful for this podcast, this conversation. Again, to listen in, go here.