Ask Nathan Anything: Quarantine Edition

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What have you changed your view on that you wouldn’t have expected to change your view?

Growing up and even into my early twenties I assumed I'd spend my whole life as a highly partisan Democrat. At some point between 2015 and 2017 I realized that the Democratic Party was no longer the "party of the little guy" that I grew up with my family and family friends teaching me it was. (I don't expect I'll ever abandon the belief that the Republicans are way worse, though.)

I've also adopted more nuanced and critical views of several individuals whom I hero-worshipped when I was younger, both people I know (my mother; my uncle) and public or historical figures (Bernie Sanders; FDR; various Christian literary figures).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, are the integration of Western references—Jazz, Shakespeare, the Bible—in Japan-produced anime’s the result of a deliberate marketing strategy, or an organic cultural assimilation of Western works?

Mostly the latter, with a few notable exceptions. The most famous exception is probably the omnipresent Jewish and Christian imagery in Neon Genesis Evangelion and its various spinoffs and elseworlds, which by all accounts was thrown in to create an atmosphere of ~cool foreign occultism~ the way a Western show might throw in mandalas or something. Jazz in particular has been fully assimilated into the Japanese music scene (to the extent that when I was in Japan I actually got sick of hearing so much jazz over intercoms and store radios; even lots of Japanese classical and soundtrack composition--Hisaishi, Sakamoto--shows a jazz influence), and some of Shakespeare's and even Dostoyevsky's more #iconic plots and characters are quite well-known in Japan.

Yeah, NGE was one of my main references for that question, but also the jazz of Cowboy Bebop (the person who introduced me to it said it was made by "Westaboos") and Shakespeare references found elsewhere.

The thing about Cowboy Bebop is that its creator, Watanabe Shin'ichiro, is ideologically opposed to the nativist and ethnocentric aspects of Japanese society, and makes a conscious effort to depict culturally and racially diverse or "blended" worlds in his work (CB, Samurai Champloo, the more recent Carole & Tuesday, etc.). This is a minority view in Japan--mainstream opinion in the country is actively proud of the ethnocentrism and perceived homogeneity--but he's not totally alone in it.

That's pretty interesting, especially given the aforementioned apparent organic infiltration by Western culture.

An infiltration that was of course itself fostered and implemented (starting in the third quarter of the nineteenth century) by tastemakers in Japan with various degrees of ideological commitment to Westernization.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

what is your opinion on Miyazaki, the famous anime producer?

[Gracile]

Why did you become more critical of Sanders?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

what is your opinion on Miyazaki, the famous anime producer?

Miyazaki's one of the greats. His movies are uniformly fantastic (sort of the Hank Aaron of anime directors; the consistency is even more impressive than the quality of each individual film) and I appreciate that in recent years he's been making more of an effort to foster younger directors so that Ghibli and the Ghibli mindset can eventually outlive him. He's also on the right side of most of the public issues--feminism, the environment, war--facing Japan and its place in the world. Not much of a family man by all accounts (his son, also an anime director, reveres his father's work but doesn't have much good to say about his parenting), but that's sadly pretty typical for Japanese men with successful careers.

Why did you become more critical of Sanders?

Frankly, it's just because I know things about politics (and the moral compromises that go into politics) now, whereas when I was a kid Sanders was just my wildly popular Congressman who was known for caring about the little guy. I also just don't like the 2020 model as much as the 2016 model. I don't think Bernie's succeeded at bringing in new people the way he banked on doing and I think he's started to talk like someone whose popularity has gone to his head. He's still far better than 95% of other American politicians, though, and I did vote for him in the Massachusetts primary.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A take of mine is that Bernie Sanders had a better campaign in 2016 than this time around in part because he wasn't a household name outside of Vermont - he's famous there for meeting with and helping constituents, with ordinary people: including small business owners, farmers, workers, all of the people from his days in Burlington.

He understood his own state and local conditions there, he knew everyone and they knew him, he was deeply rooted there (as opposed to a bunch of Brooklyn cargo cult left activists and Online types who latched on to him, especially post-2016).

What do you think? If you anything to add, I'd love to read it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A take of mine is that Bernie Sanders had a better campaign in 2016 than this time around in part because he wasn't a household name outside of Vermont - he's famous there for meeting with and helping constituents, with ordinary people: including small business owners, farmers, workers, all of the people from his days in Burlington.

He understood his own state and local conditions there, he knew everyone and they knew him, he was deeply rooted there (as opposed to a bunch of Brooklyn cargo cult left activists and Online types who latched on to him, especially post-2016).

What do you think? If you anything to add, I'd love to read it.

I think that's exactly right. And I think Vermont recognized that last month, obviously not the point of falling completely out of love with Bernie (I doubt that's possible at this point; Vermont loves its Institutions, of whom he is one), but to the point of...a relatively underwhelming home-state landslide rather than the megatsunami of 2016. "Local boy made good" makes a good story; "local boy gone nationwide", not so much. At least not for the Vermont mind.

[brucejoel99]

A take of mine is that Bernie Sanders had a better campaign in 2016 than this time around in part because he wasn't a household name outside of Vermont - he's famous there for meeting with and helping constituents, with ordinary people: including small business owners, farmers, workers, all of the people from his days in Burlington.

He understood his own state and local conditions there, he knew everyone and they knew him, he was deeply rooted there (as opposed to a bunch of Brooklyn cargo cult left activists and Online types who latched on to him, especially post-2016).

What do you think? If you anything to add, I'd love to read it.

I think that's exactly right. And I think Vermont recognized that last month, obviously not the point of falling completely out of love with Bernie (I doubt that's possible at this point; Vermont loves its Institutions, of whom he is one), but to the point of...a relatively underwhelming home-state landslide rather than the megatsunami of 2016. "Local boy made good" makes a good story; "local boy gone nationwide", not so much. At least not for the Vermont mind.

As somebody with an aunt who was born, raised, & has spent her life in Vermont & shifted from Bernie 2016 to Biden 2020, this right here.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Would you consider running for local (or any) office again?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Would you consider running for local (or any) office again?

I don't think I have the stomach for an election cycle at this point. Maybe that'll change some day. Recently I've been considering applying for a position on one of the appointed boards in my town like the Historical Commission or the Disability Access Commission.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can you elaborate on how exactly you envision the relationship between religion and secular authority? To what extent should the State be involved in supporting religious practice (both financially and in terms of special legal protections), and to what extent can the state legislate in ways that might (directly or indirectly) restrict religious practice? Has your thinking on these issues changed in the past years?

Also, on a lighter note, is there any anime that we somehow haven't discussed yet that you'd like to recommend?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Can you elaborate on how exactly you envision the relationship between religion and secular authority? To what extent should the State be involved in supporting religious practice (both financially and in terms of special legal protections), and to what extent can the state legislate in ways that might (directly or indirectly) restrict religious practice?

I'm a pretty by-the-book First Amendment "muh basic freedoms" American on most of these questions--no direct organic links between church and state; no attempts on the part of the state to influence religious belief or teaching (this principle leads me to be suspicious of the Johnson Amendment); legal restrictions on religious practices only if it's the view of the vast majority of the population that those practices manifestly imperil individual rights or the public good; no attempts on the part of religious bodies to seek special legal or political favors for themselves (although the idea that people of faith should or even can just ignore our religious beliefs when acting as officeholders or voters is beyond ridiculous). One of the great contributions to world affairs that the neoconservative movement--or rather, an individual who was retroactively associated with the neoconservative movement--did manage to make was John Courtney Murray overcoming the Catholic hierarchy's often-justified suspicion of American politics and culture for long enough to get the traditional American view of freedom of religion legitimated within the Church at Vatican II.

I tend to favor the right to freedom of religion, which is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, over unenumerated rights against which it's sometimes counterposed, but that's an opinion that stems from my view of the Constitution rather than my ideals about church and state. The vast majority of the time in cases like muh wedding cake or whatever my personal sympathies are with the gay people.

Has your thinking on these issues changed in the past years?

Yes. Between about 2013 and 2017, I was much more receptive to the idea of an organic partnership between the state and religious bodies than I was before or am now. I still don't object to that on a purely theoretical level but a deeper study of history, including Church history, led me to conclude that in practice that is always going to taint religion with the agenda of whatever worldly power structure the religious leaders become implicated in.

Also, on a lighter note, is there any anime that we somehow haven't discussed yet that you'd like to recommend?

Watch Serial Experiments Lain! It's better than sex.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Watch Serial Experiments Lain! It's better than sex.

Ah, yes, Serial Experiments Lain!. I came across it years ago on TV Tropes and thought "boy, this is way too trippy for me". Now I'm thinking I might just be reaching the anime power level necessary to digest it. NGE was a good stepping stone.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Watch Serial Experiments Lain! It's better than sex.

Ah, yes, Serial Experiments Lain!. I came across it years ago on TV Tropes and thought "boy, this is way too trippy for me". Now I'm thinking I might just be reaching the anime power level necessary to digest it. NGE was a good stepping stone.

Really less an issue of anime medium power level and more an issue of cyberpunk genre power level imo. I do think you could handle it, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A few more questions with no common thread, just dumping everything that comes to mind.

First off, in parallel to your last question, favorite Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey? Feel free to divide it by period if it's easier.

What are your favorite periods or events in European history? Do you have any hot takes about it? What are the periods or aspects you'd like to learn more about, and what are those you're comparatively least interested in?

What is your favorite pre-1492 historical what-if? Any hot takes on how things might have turned out differently?

What are your thoughts on Muslim theology? How do you view it in comparison/relationship to Christianity and Judaism? What are the aspects of it, or currents of thought within it, that you find most interesting? And what are the aspects you find most difficult to reconcile with your religious perspective? How would you suggest approaching the subject as a complete beginner?

And finally... marry, f**k, kill: Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A few more questions with no common thread, just dumping everything that comes to mind.

First off, in parallel to your last question, favorite Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey? Feel free to divide it by period if it's easier.

Massachusetts: Far and away John Albion Andrew, who might actually be one of the greatest governors any state has ever had. He was a #populist abolitionist lawyer--the sort of "cause"-oriented attorney who today works for the ACLU or CLINIC if on the left, or one of the various Evangelical religious-freedom outfits if on the right--who fought the ex-Know Nothing element in the nascent Republican Party and was swept into office on Lincoln's coattails in 1860. He was in office throughout the Civil War and was one of the strongest abolitionist and Radical Republican voices in the country, constantly pressuring the Lincoln administration to adopt stronger anti-slavery measures and creating the first black US Army formations. He also rejected the nativism and anti-Catholicism that was rampant in the early GOP, chartering the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester and spearheading the repeal of a state constitutional provision requiring naturalized citizens to wait for two years before gaining voting rights. Unfortunately, by the end of the war he had moderated on racial issues--either out of sheer war-weariness or because he was one of those people who, while a firm abolitionist, was still quite personally racist; I'm not sure--but the vast majority of his legacy is that of somebody who was genuinely ahead of his time on issues of equal justice under law, one of the few politicians of the time who opposed the Slave Power and the Know Nothings with equal vehemence.

Vermont: The more I learn about Vermont history the more I come to think that maybe the progressive wing of the VTGOP during the state's one-party "Mountain Rule" period really was as good as it got--not in the sense that it was the best Vermont could have done (far from it!) but in the more limited sense that it was, well, the best Vermont did do. The progressive Republican governor I'm most familiar with is George Aiken, mentioned up-thread, a local hero in my hometown who held office during the Great Depression before becoming a long-serving US Senator. (Although he preferred to be addressed as "Governor Aiken" throughout his later career; evidently, like that Capetian king who turned down an opportunity to be crowned Emperor because being King of France was honor enough, Aiken was of the opinion that being Governor of Vermont for four years was more than enough kudos for one lifetime.) Aiken's big achievement is rural electrification, which he accomplished in tandem with the federal New Deal (it was an opt-in program) and over against the interests of the powerful private utility companies of the day. In many ways Aiken was a classic small-state clientelist pork-barrel governor, welcoming the "free stuff" that the federal government provided for Vermont but resenting FDR's attempts to oversee how the Vermont state government managed that stuff; but I actually don't mind this much, since I've never had the centralization fetish many leftists seem to.

New Jersey: I know much less about New Jersey's political history than I do about New England's--not because it doesn't interest me; it just doesn't interest me as much--so this'll be a much more concise assessment, but I always had a soft spot for Richard Codey. He was a soothing WWC Democrat who succeeded to the governorship after Jim McGreevey resigned in 2004 and served for a little over a year, in which time he took more decisive action against New Jersey's endemic public-sector corruption than any other recent governor has even attempted. He also ended capital punishment in New Jersey, vetoed making "New Jersey: We'll Win You Over" the state's new tourism slogan, and was an advocate for mental health awareness who once physically threatened some shock jock for making fun of his wife's postpartum depression. For moral and religious reasons I'm obliged to deplore Codey's later support for legalizing assisted suicide, but that happened after he was governor and I still think he's perhaps the only New Jersey governor in my lifetime with whom the good outweighs the bad.

I'll answer the rest of your questions later!

[lfromnj]

A few more questions with no common thread, just dumping everything that comes to mind.

First off, in parallel to your last question, favorite Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey? Feel free to divide it by period if it's easier.

Massachusetts: Far and away John Albion Andrew, who might actually be one of the greatest governors any state has ever had. A #populist abolitionist lawyer--the sort of "cause"-oriented attorney who today works for the ACLU or CLINIC if on the left, or one of the various Evangelical religious-freedom outfits if on the right--who fought the ex-Know Nothing element in the nascent Republican Party and was swept into office on Lincoln's coattails in 1860. He was in office throughout the Civil War and was one of the strongest abolitionist and Radical Republican voices in the country, constantly pressuring the Lincoln administration to adopt stronger anti-slavery measures and creating the first black US Army formations. He also rejected the nativism and anti-Catholicism that was rampant in the early GOP, chartering the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester and spearheading the repeal of a state constitutional provision requiring naturalized citizens to wait for two years before gaining voting rights. Unfortunately, by the end of the war he had moderated on racial issues--either out of sheer war-weariness or because he was one of those people who, while a firm abolitionist, was still quite personally racist; I'm not sure--but the vast majority of his legacy is that of somebody who was genuinely ahead of his time on issues of equal justice under law, one of the few politicians of the time who opposed the Slave Power and the Know Nothings with equal vehemence.

Vermont: The more I learn about Vermont history the more I come to think that maybe the progressive wing of the VTGOP during the state's one-party "Mountain Rule" period really was as good as it got--not in the sense that it was the best Vermont could have done (far from it!) but in the more limited sense that it was, well, the best Vermont did do. The progressive Republican governor I'm most familiar with is George Aiken, mentioned up-thread, a local hero in my hometown who held office during the Great Depression before becoming a long-serving US Senator. (Although he preferred to be addressed as "Governor Aiken" throughout his later career; evidently, like that Capetian king who turned down an opportunity to be crowned Emperor because being King of France was honor enough, Aiken was of the opinion that being Governor of Vermont for four years was more than enough kudos for one lifetime.) Aiken's big achievement is rural electrification, which he accomplished in tandem with the federal New Deal (it was an opt-in program) and over against the interests of the powerful private utility companies of the day. In many ways Aiken was a classic small-state clientelist pork-barrel governor, welcoming the "free stuff" that the federal government provided for Vermont but resenting FDR's attempts to control how the Vermont state government managed that stuff; but I actually don't mind this much, since I've never had the centralization fetish many leftists seem to.

New Jersey: I know much less about New Jersey's political history than I do about New England's--not because it doesn't interest me; it just doesn't interest me as much--so this'll be a much more concise assessment, but I always had a soft spot for Richard Codey. He was a soothing WWC Democrat who succeeded to the governorship after Jim McGreevey resigned in 2004 and served for a little over a year, in which time he took more decisive action against New Jersey's endemic public-sector corruption than any other recent governor has event attempted. He also ended capital punishment in New Jersey, vetoed making "New Jersey: We'll Win You Over" the state's new tourism slogan, and was an advocate for mental health awareness who once physically threatened some shock jock for making fun of his wife's postpartum depression. For moral and religious reasons I'm obliged to deplore Codey's later support for legalizing assisted suicide, but that happened after he was governor and I still think he's perhaps the only New Jersey governor in my lifetime with whom the good outweighs the bad.

I'll answer the rest of your questions later!

Whats your problem with Phil Murphy?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A few more questions with no common thread, just dumping everything that comes to mind.

First off, in parallel to your last question, favorite Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey? Feel free to divide it by period if it's easier.

Massachusetts: Far and away John Albion Andrew, who might actually be one of the greatest governors any state has ever had. A #populist abolitionist lawyer--the sort of "cause"-oriented attorney who today works for the ACLU or CLINIC if on the left, or one of the various Evangelical religious-freedom outfits if on the right--who fought the ex-Know Nothing element in the nascent Republican Party and was swept into office on Lincoln's coattails in 1860. He was in office throughout the Civil War and was one of the strongest abolitionist and Radical Republican voices in the country, constantly pressuring the Lincoln administration to adopt stronger anti-slavery measures and creating the first black US Army formations. He also rejected the nativism and anti-Catholicism that was rampant in the early GOP, chartering the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester and spearheading the repeal of a state constitutional provision requiring naturalized citizens to wait for two years before gaining voting rights. Unfortunately, by the end of the war he had moderated on racial issues--either out of sheer war-weariness or because he was one of those people who, while a firm abolitionist, was still quite personally racist; I'm not sure--but the vast majority of his legacy is that of somebody who was genuinely ahead of his time on issues of equal justice under law, one of the few politicians of the time who opposed the Slave Power and the Know Nothings with equal vehemence.

Vermont: The more I learn about Vermont history the more I come to think that maybe the progressive wing of the VTGOP during the state's one-party "Mountain Rule" period really was as good as it got--not in the sense that it was the best Vermont could have done (far from it!) but in the more limited sense that it was, well, the best Vermont did do. The progressive Republican governor I'm most familiar with is George Aiken, mentioned up-thread, a local hero in my hometown who held office during the Great Depression before becoming a long-serving US Senator. (Although he preferred to be addressed as "Governor Aiken" throughout his later career; evidently, like that Capetian king who turned down an opportunity to be crowned Emperor because being King of France was honor enough, Aiken was of the opinion that being Governor of Vermont for four years was more than enough kudos for one lifetime.) Aiken's big achievement is rural electrification, which he accomplished in tandem with the federal New Deal (it was an opt-in program) and over against the interests of the powerful private utility companies of the day. In many ways Aiken was a classic small-state clientelist pork-barrel governor, welcoming the "free stuff" that the federal government provided for Vermont but resenting FDR's attempts to control how the Vermont state government managed that stuff; but I actually don't mind this much, since I've never had the centralization fetish many leftists seem to.

New Jersey: I know much less about New Jersey's political history than I do about New England's--not because it doesn't interest me; it just doesn't interest me as much--so this'll be a much more concise assessment, but I always had a soft spot for Richard Codey. He was a soothing WWC Democrat who succeeded to the governorship after Jim McGreevey resigned in 2004 and served for a little over a year, in which time he took more decisive action against New Jersey's endemic public-sector corruption than any other recent governor has event attempted. He also ended capital punishment in New Jersey, vetoed making "New Jersey: We'll Win You Over" the state's new tourism slogan, and was an advocate for mental health awareness who once physically threatened some shock jock for making fun of his wife's postpartum depression. For moral and religious reasons I'm obliged to deplore Codey's later support for legalizing assisted suicide, but that happened after he was governor and I still think he's perhaps the only New Jersey governor in my lifetime with whom the good outweighs the bad.

I'll answer the rest of your questions later!

Whats your problem with Phil Murphy?

None so far, but he's still in office and so his term can't be assessed holistically yet.

[The Mikado]

I recently played Steins; Gate. Have you either played the VN or watched the show (which I haven't seen yet)?

I adore Steins; Gate, despite a few aspects I don't approve of.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What are your favorite periods or events in European history? Do you have any hot takes about it? What are the periods or aspects you'd like to learn more about, and what are those you're comparatively least interested in?

I'm deeply interested in the High Middle Ages, the "long nineteenth century" (especially in England), and both World Wars (especially the social history of the wars rather than the military and political events, although those do interest me too). I'd say I'm quite knowledgeable about High/Late Medieval England, Victorian Britain, and Europe during World War II; getting more knowledgeable about High/Late Medieval Italy and "Golden Age" Spain; and still not very knowledgeable about pre-Louis XIV French history or about Central and Eastern European history before 1700ish.

My hot take on European history is that royal and aristocratic dynastic politics, heraldry, succession crises, etc. etc., including idiosyncratic survivals like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are actually really interesting and fun to learn about, even though ideologically I'm opposed to them (sane).

What is your favorite pre-1492 historical what-if? Any hot takes on how things might have turned out differently?

My recent read of the Tale of the Heike got me thinking about what Japanese and thus East Asian history might have been like if the Genpei War hadn't happened or had gone differently. I think Japan would have been a significantly less militaristic and even more heavily bureaucratized society going forward, more similar to China in China's more peaceful periods. I'm not sure the country would have been closed off to Western influence for over two hundred years, mainly because I don't think the institutional logic would have been there to maintain support for a leader who would impose that kind of policy to the degree that support was maintained for the Tokugawa IRL.

What are your thoughts on Muslim theology? How do you view it in comparison/relationship to Christianity and Judaism? What are the aspects of it, or currents of thought within it, that you find most interesting? And what are the aspects you find most difficult to reconcile with your religious perspective? How would you suggest approaching the subject as a complete beginner?

I'll answer this tomorrow.

And finally... marry, f**k, kill: Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Friedrich Nietzsche.

F**K Bentham (UGH UGH UGH), marry Nietzsche (might actually be the lesser evil, at least in terms of personal habits; I'd consider reversing him and Bentham but Bentham to my knowledge didn't have an STD), kill Aristole (#NeverClassicalAntiquityMaleSexuality).

I recently played Steins; Gate. Have you either played the VN or watched the show (which I haven't seen yet)?

I adore Steins; Gate, despite a few aspects I don't approve of.

I saw the show years and years ago, I want to say maybe in the spring of 2012, in my undergrad alma mater's anime club (Et in Arcadia ego...). I liked it a lot; I appreciate that it's usually pretty irreverent but is willing to shift into a more sentimental register when that's what's called for. (The "relativity theory is so romantic and sad" scene is undiluted bathos without sufficient context--readers of this thread will have noticed this based on the fact that "relativity theory is so romantic and sad" is an actual line that a character in this show says out loud--but becomes startlingly effective once you do have that context.) The show is also often laugh-out-loud funny, and it doesn't pull punches about what kinds of people in modern Japanese society would be liable to become Doc Brown LARPers fooling around with physics equipment in a walk-up apartment.

I haven't played the VN and I don't really feel like I'm missing much; something about the visual novel medium doesn't appeal to me even though I know plenty of great stories are being told in that medium.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm deeply interested in the High Middle Ages, the "long nineteenth century" (especially in England), and both World Wars (especially the social history of the wars rather than the military and political events, although those do interest me too). I'd say I'm quite knowledgeable about High/Late Medieval England, Victorian Britain, and Europe during World War II; getting more knowledgeable about High/Late Medieval Italy and "Golden Age" Spain; and still not very knowledgeable about pre-Louis XIV French history or about Central and Eastern European history before 1700ish.

We have a lot of overlap (not that I'm surprised in the slightest, but that's good to know for future reference in our conversations)! The Long 19th Century is my true historical love, as you well know, and I've been really getting into the High and Late Middle Ages in the past year or so. I'm also interested in the period marked by two World Wars, but I'm actually a lot more interested in what happened before and after (even the interwar era is fascinating in its stark bleakness) than in the wars themselves. I'm also very interested in the 17th and 18th centuries, as crucial preludes for understanding 1789-1914. Happy to fill you in on Italian and French history whenever you're interested, and I too would like to learn more about pre-modern era Central and Eastern European history.

My hot take on European history is that royal and aristocratic dynastic politics, heraldry, succession crises, etc. etc., including idiosyncratic survivals like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are actually really interesting and fun to learn about, even though ideologically I'm opposed to them (sane).

I try not to indulge it too much on here in order to preserve my image but honestly, me too. I mean I wouldn't have made an alignment chart for great European houses if I had no interest in that sort of stuff.

My recent read of the Tale of the Heike got me thinking about what Japanese and thus East Asian history might have been like if the Genpei War hadn't happened or had gone differently. I think Japan would have been a significantly less militaristic and even more heavily bureaucratized society going forward, more similar to China in China's more peaceful periods. I'm not sure the country would have been closed off to Western influence for over two hundred years, mainly because I don't think the institutional logic would have been there to maintain support for a leader who would impose that kind of policy to the degree that support was maintained for the Tokugawa IRL.

That is fascinating. I know next to nothing about pre-Tokugawa Japan (and really not that much on Tokugawa and beyond), and that's another area I'd really like to expand my knowledge of. So far it's been hard to identify the critical moments that truly changed the course of Japan as a society and a polity (rather than just changing whoever was in charge at a given time). I knew that the Genpei War did the latter, but I had no idea it impacted the former as well. Could you elaborate on how and why it did so? What were the key differences, culturally, sociologically and politically, between the Taira and the Minamoto? Or were the differences between the two clans less important than the way in which the war was fought and what it did to both sides of the conflict? I'd love it if you could expand on all that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What are your thoughts on Muslim theology? How do you view it in comparison/relationship to Christianity and Judaism? What are the aspects of it, or currents of thought within it, that you find most interesting? And what are the aspects you find most difficult to reconcile with your religious perspective? How would you suggest approaching the subject as a complete beginner?

To finally get around to this (sorry!), I actually don't know much about Muslim theology--only Muslim mysticism, which isn't the same thing, and to some extent also Muslim philosophy, which also isn't the same thing. I'm interested in al-Ghazali less because I agree with his key insights (I don't) and more because it fascinates me how they anticipate certain concepts in Western philosophy (occasionalism and by extension radical skepticism; the concept of qualia) by many centuries. The most difficult aspect of Islam to reconcile with Christianity is obviously going to be the fact that it is not an incarnational religion and doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus; the thing I like most about it is that it is a "law religion" (I appreciate religions that make a serious attempt at modifying their practitioners' behavior, although I know many people do not) that, relative to Judaism, contains more of the stories--about Jesus, Mary, and so forth--that I love in my own religion.

That is fascinating. I know next to nothing about pre-Tokugawa Japan (and really not that much on Tokugawa and beyond), and that's another area I'd really like to expand my knowledge of. So far it's been hard to identify the critical moments that truly changed the course of Japan as a society and a polity (rather than just changing whoever was in charge at a given time). I knew that the Genpei War did the latter, but I had no idea it impacted the former as well. Could you elaborate on how and why it did so? What were the key differences, culturally, sociologically and politically, between the Taira and the Minamoto? Or were the differences between the two clans less important than the way in which the war was fought and what it did to both sides of the conflict? I'd love it if you could expand on all that.

The Genpei War marks the transition of Japan from civilian to military rule and from rule by a bureaucratized court set up around the Emperor to rule by a military and administrative caste set up around a shogun, typically based somewhere other than Kyoto. The Taira and the Minamoto weren't really different "philosophically"--both were gangs of hardened thugs who happened to have close personal and familial ties to the imperial family. The war shredded Japanese society and caused severe famines; parts of the Heike read almost like the over-the-top descriptions of war-ravaged Westeros in A Feast for Crows, with "smallfolk suffering while the great lords play their game of thrones", and by the end neither side had the moral high ground even by the standards of the day. However, geographically the Taira were more associated with Kyoto and the well-settled areas west of Kyoto, which were also on the trade routes to Korea and China, whereas the Minamoto were associated with the more sparsely populated and culturally less Continental-influenced north and east.* The power base after the war thus moved out of Kyoto and into eastern Japan (Kamakura, seat of the Minamoto shoguns, is now a bedroom community of Tokyo), where it fell more fully under the influence of figures with primarily military rather than civilian credentials. The centralized bureaucracy was then gradually supplanted by what we'd recognize as feudalism, with great landholding lords, vassals, and so forth. This also had an influence on Japan's religious history; organized Shinto declined (I once saw somebody make the ridiculous claim that Shinto has a tradition of "sacred prostitution"; what it actually has a tradition of is priestesses falling on hard times and taking to the open roads to become traveling conjurors who turn tricks on the side) and forms of Buddhism that had an appeal to the warrior mentality, such as Zen, became popular in Japan for the first time.

*I was going to say that the Taira were also so closely interrelated with the imperial line that Taira no Kiyomori was the maternal grandfather of both rival emperors during the war...but no, I looked it up and Emperor Go-Toba was the son of Emperor Takakura's Fujiwara concubine rather than his Taira consort.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

How comparable have Japanese and, broadly-speaking, "European" political structures been, pre-1945 (let's say going back to the 1600s or whenever)?  Additionally, was Japan more or less comparable than other notable contemporaneous non-European political organizations?

We of course use the term "feudal Japan", but I have no idea how accurate a characterization that is, and some (Barrington Moore Jr.) have even compared the late stages of Japanese militarism to fascism (though there is substantial reason to be skeptical).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Would you consider running for local (or any) office again?

I don't think I have the stomach for an election cycle at this point. Maybe that'll change some day. Recently I've been considering applying for a position on one of the appointed boards in my town like the Historical Commission or the Disability Access Commission.

You’d be great on either board, but the Historical Commissions sounds fun. Go for it friend!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How comparable have Japanese and, broadly-speaking, "European" political structures been, pre-1945 (let's say going back to the 1600s or whenever)?  Additionally, was Japan more or less comparable than other notable contemporaneous non-European political organizations?

We of course use the term "feudal Japan", but I have no idea how accurate a characterization that is, and some (Barrington Moore Jr.) have even compared the late stages of Japanese militarism to fascism (though there is substantial reason to be skeptical).

I tend to be pretty generous about drawing parallels between Japanese and European political developments, certainly more generous than with other Western/non-Western parallels. The way I was taught about medieval Japan indicated that the system there genuinely was very similar to European feudalism. You have the same structure of theoretical overall hegemon, de facto (i.e. armed to the teeth) political leadership of the country, lords, vassals, peasants, nascent urban middle class, and so forth, right down to the polycephalous moral authority-cum-power broker role of "the church"--although Japan had a diversity of Buddhist denominations as opposed to Europe's Catholic/Orthodox duopoly. One interesting difference is that in the producerist-inclined Confucian-ish class system the peasants were nominally "above" the artisans and merchants; however, in practice it didn't work that way.

I tend to refer to Japan's 1932-1945 period as fascist when speaking with non-specialists and ultranationalist (the currently-preferred scholarly term) when speaking with fellow Japan studies people. In my reading of the history involved, it had most of the same features as European fascism but with a stronger religious element (the religion of course being State Shinto, an unwieldy chimera with next to no meaningful theological resemblance to previous stages of Shinto's development) and (relatedly) without the claim to have broken from the more "traditional" hard right.

Would you consider running for local (or any) office again?

I don't think I have the stomach for an election cycle at this point. Maybe that'll change some day. Recently I've been considering applying for a position on one of the appointed boards in my town like the Historical Commission or the Disability Access Commission.

You’d be great on either board, but the Historical Commissions sounds fun. Go for it friend!

Thank you! I just might.