Tyler Cowen interviews Harvey Mansfield, professor emeritus at Harvard University and author of the new book The Rise and Fall of Rational Control. Mansfield is a leading Straussian scholar known for his work on political philosophy, Machiavelli, and classical political thought.

The conversation explores Machiavelli's foundational role in modern political thought, examining how The Prince and Discourses on Livy introduced concepts like effectual truth and systematic approaches to conspiracy. They discuss the irreversibility of modernity, the nature of political secrecy, and contemporary applications of classical political theory.

Mansfield addresses the future of Straussian scholarship, comparing it to analytic philosophy and materialist approaches. The discussion covers Shakespeare's insights into political leadership, the decline of great book writing, and concludes with reflections on Manliness, aging, and their influence on political thinking.

Machiavelli's Revolutionary Concept of Effectual Truth

Machiavelli invented 'effectual truth' - the actual outcome rather than stated intent, as when 'I love you' effectually means 'I want something from you' - forming the foundation of modern science

The word 'effectual' was brand new, invented by Machiavelli from Latin 'facer' (to make), leading to our modern concept of 'fact' as something without wish or intent attached

Modern science follows Machiavelli's approach - Galileo didn't ask public opinion about earth's movement but looked for factual evidence, departing from Plato and Aristotle's speech-based philosophy

The Irreversible Nature of Technological Modernity

Technology, especially military technology like gunpowder, makes modernity irreversible because 'once somebody has gunpowder, then others must have it' for national defense

Strauss believed modernity wasn't reversible but was improvable, with ancients offering more insight on 'how should I live' than moderns

The improvement wouldn't be marginal - Strauss began from the ancient world that produced Machiavelli's modern revolution, not from the modern world itself

Conspiracy as the Heart of Machiavellian Politics

The longest chapter in The Prince and Discourses on Livy is on conspiracy (book 3, chapter 6), providing detailed instructions for three stages: before, during, and after

Machiavelli wants readers to think of politics conspiratorially - what happens behind the scenes is more important than public principles and justifications

All politics requires secrecy because 'you can't ever speak without holding back something' - even a babysitter cannot tell the baby everything they know

American 20th-century wars were defensive rather than conspiratorial, showing where Machiavelli got it wrong - 'America saved the world from three great invasions'

Shakespeare's Political Insights and Trump's Vulgarian Democracy

Macbeth offers insights into ambition's nature and the debate between pre-Christian revenge and Christian peace, highlighting political science's neglect of human ambition

Trump fits Shakespeare's 'vulgarian' characters - 'not a gentleman' who works at the level of 'discordant impulse' and seeks to strike rather than persuade

Trump is 'more democratic than the rest of us' because he understands and impresses people who are not refined in thinking and ways, like Shakespeare's vulgar characters around Falstaff

The Future of Straussian Scholarship and Great Books

The future of Straussianism is 'pretty good' because it's based on great books like The Republic, which guarantee their own future through superiority - 'we still read Plato's Republic 2,500 years ago'

Best way to learn Straussian methods: 'Look for a Straussian. Look at Strauss' books, especially Natural Right and History' and Persecution and the Art of Writing

Strauss had 'logographic necessity' - everything in a great book must be where it is, with no accidents, requiring attention to what is said, how it's said, and where it's placed

Only Heidegger and Strauss wrote truly great books in the 20th century, with the supply drying up because philosophy has been historicized and authors no longer try to write 'a possession for all times'

Straussian vs. Analytic Philosophy Methods

Strauss treats arguments 'as if they were in a play' with plot and context, while analytic philosophy 'tries to withdraw the argument from where it was in Plato'

Every Platonic dialogue 'leaves something out' and contains 'intentionally bad arguments' meant for particular people, requiring readers to raise them to Socrates' level

The key difference is 'the lack of irony in analytic philosophy' - philosophy must account for non-philosophers and not 'give a flat statement of what you think is true'

Rawls' 'public reason' meant his private reasoning equaled his public reasoning, whereas Straussian reason 'is never public or universal' because it considers the audience's character

Critique of Hayekian Spontaneous Order

Hayek's spontaneous order is 'an advanced version of what was originally intended' by Machiavelli - letting nobles and plebs fight it out as in Rome

The Hayekian view 'overlooks the necessity of liberating spontaneity' - spontaneous order needs to be liberated from inhibitions and doesn't happen spontaneously

Modern order originally came from liberation, not imposition, but liberation itself requires imposition to remove what prevents spontaneous order