At the beginning of the baseball season, we announced in the Kristol Clear newsletter a contest in which you had a chance to pick the teams that would make the World Series, and the winner. We’ve got the entries, are dutifully keeping track as promised, and the payoff will be YUUGE.
But since some people picked world champions that didn’t make the playoffs (yes, that’s you, Jim Swift, our resident Indians fan who picked the…Cardinals?), and since some of you would like another chance to show your predictive powers, let’s play two. To play, click here.
My picks, you ask? I’m torn. My first love, the Mets, are in, along with the team I rooted for in college and grad school, the Red Sox. My kids grew up going to Orioles games, and then the Nats came to D.C. So I have lots of competing considerations here. But I’m going with my originals. On the 30th anniversary of the Bill Buckner series, I’ll take the Mets and the Red Sox, with the Sox winning this time, as David Ortiz goes out with another World Series championship. David Axelrod’s Cubs will fall to the Mets in the league championship (by the way, David’s piece in the New Yorker on Theo Epstein and the Cubs is well worth reading). The Dodgers will not produce a championship for Vin Scully in his last year of memorably announcing their games (Terry Eastland’s tribute to the great voice of the Dodgers rewards rereading too, as does Chuck Culpepper’s appreciationin the Washington Post). You should also, while baseball’s on your mind, read Lee Smith’s tribute to Jose Fernandez.
Ah, baseball. So much better than politics—especially this year.
***
Last Saturday, I participated in what was, I thought, quite an interesting discussion on the future of conservatism at the Texas Tribune Festival at the University of Texas in Austin. The panel was ably moderated by Erica Grieder of Texas Monthly, and the other panelists were Matt Lewis, Avik Roy, and Erick Erickson. We agreed on some things, disagreed on others, and agreed that the answers to probably the most important questions were at this point open or unknowable. The audio is online here.
I hope you find it interesting. And a reminder: If you want to see Erick Erickson and me—and Fred Barnes, Steve Hayes, and many other colleagues—revisiting the question of the future of conservatism after the election, when things presumably will be a little clearer—do join us for our December cruise. We’re pleased Erick will be joining us, as his has been aclear and distinctive voice this election season, and will surely be one as we all try to chart a hopeful future.
***
Assuming you have any time over the coming weeks, between baseball playoffs, college and pro football, opera and…oh yes, I guess there’s an election going on…here’s something I heartily recommend: A new conversation with Harvey Mansfield from the Foundation for Constitutional Government.
This is a little different from most of my conversations with Mansfield. Here, the political philosopher recommends some important and diverting books from different genres, ranging from mystery novels to comic capers to political science and history. I think it’s all pretty fascinating, at once fun and thought-provoking. So take a moment—well, an hour and a quarter—to listen to Mansfield on Bill James, Agatha Christie, Donald Westlake, P.G. Wodehouse, James Q. Wilson, Winston Churchill, and Jonathan Swift. Or you can read the transcript here.
This past week, by the way, we filmed a few new conversations which the FCG will be unveiling over the next several weeks. First up will be a discussion with Elliott Abrams on the foreign policy challenges facing the next president—a rich discussion informed by Elliott’s experience of almost two decades in government as well as his knowledge and judgment. And then you’ll see Justice Clarence Thomas reflecting on constitutionalism, the Court, and America. So more to look forward to in October in case the baseball playoffs prove disappointing!
