Q & A, Hosted by Jay Nordlinger

One of the writers I read most regularly is Clay Risen. He writes obituaries for the New York Times. Another way to say that is, he is a composer of mini-biographies, week after week.He has also worked as a political writer. And he has authored ten books, on various subjects: including the American civil rights movement, Theodore Roosevelt, McCarthyism, and whiskey.In our Q&A, we spend some time on Roosevelt. What a fascinating, and multifaceted, man. We also talk about his growing up—Clay’s, that is (but TR’s too, come to think of it). Clay is from Nashville. Actually from Nashville.I have known many Nashvillians, but they have been people who moved there.The bulk of our conversation, we spend on obituaries—their whys and wherefores. As my regular readers know, I love obits. It’s not that I’m macabre. No. I’m sorry the person has died. I just love life stories.Consider a couple of things. (1) Maybe my favorite genre, in the book world, is biography and autobiography. (2) My attention span is possibly—possibly—getting a little shorter, what with blogposts and tweets and all.Therefore, obits are pretty much made for me.Many years ago, I talked with Bob Bork about the New York Times. He had given up reading the paper, out of political disgust. But there was one section he could not give up, and would not give up: the obits.He was addicted (and so, I suppose, am I).What are the ingredients of a good obituarist? Clay Risen touches on the main ones. You have to be curious—curious about people, curious about life, in all of its diversity, and weirdness. You have to be an absorber of information. It helps to be a fast learner. And you have to be sensitive.There are family members to consider—survivors of the deceased. Is it nice, or right, to speak ill of the dead? No. At the same time, an obit is not a eulogy. An obit requires biographical honesty.An obituarist for the New York Times has a special burden: the Times obit will be the “obit of record,” the obit that people will turn to, for years and years.“Hey, what was the deal with that John Smith fella? Hang on, let me Google the New York Times obit.”I think of music criticism (as I tell Clay in our podcast). The Times is more or less the trade journal of classical music. There is a lot riding on a Times review. There is extra weight on the shoulders of a Times critic—he can hurt someone.I really can’t, which is a relief. Which frees one up, really.Anyway, they are a very interesting subject, obits. And Clay Risen is a very interesting talker about them, and many another subject as well. You will enjoy his company. A literate, learned, genial man.At the end of our Q&A, I ask him whether he’s glad to be an obits writer in our present era—rather than a political reporter, say. “Yes,” he answers, “a thousand times yes.”I get it!Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

I’ll quote from my introduction:… our guest today is Michael Feinberg, a former FBI agent who is now a writer and editor with Lawfare. With the FBI, he won a slew of awards and commendations, but was forced out last year when the regime of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino came in. He wrote about all this in a moving article called “Goodbye to All That.” Mr. Feinberg, of course, borrowed his title from Robert Graves.He grew up in the Chicago suburbs—in “John Hughes territory,” as I call it. In fact, many of Feinberg’s friends—plus his sister—appeared as extras in John Hughes films.Feinberg went to Brandeis University and then Northwestern’s law school. He was a conservative with a libertarian bent. He read Reason, National Review, The Weekly Standard. He was a member of the Young Friends of The New Criterion.The whole bitsy, as we’d say in the Midwest.Oh, here’s another thing: “I was probably one of the few people, in their twenties, who sat through the entirety of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation in a public library.”Mike was practicing law. One day, the family threw a surprise birthday party for his grandfather, who was turning 90. One guest at the party was the honoree’s brother, age 87. The two of them were reminiscing about how they joined the Army after Pearl Harbor.And Mike thought: I was in my first year of law school on 9/11. But I did not change the course of my life at all. Maybe I should do something more public service–oriented.The FBI it was.Feinberg spent a lot of time countering the influence of the Chinese government. He worked with many different types in the FBI. We discuss all that. And what happened to the Bureau with the onset of the second Trump administration.Are there still good people—real professionals—in the FBI? Can the damage be repaired, at some point in the future? What have we lost, and how long might it take to rebuild it?We spend some time on the Epstein scandal. “Scandal” is far too light a word. “Abomination,” “horror.” We also spend some time on ICE. Is this how a law-enforcement agency should behave? Some do behave that way, says Feinberg—but not in countries, or under regimes, that we Americans generally seek to emulate.At the end of our conversation, we talk about a big question, almost a sentimental one: “where we are.” What has become of our country. Mike cites the parable of the Prodigal Son. And he looks forward to a kind of national homecoming.It was a real pleasure to talk with this fellow, and to learn about the FBI from him, and I’m glad he is “in the arena,” contributing in the ways available to him. He doesn’t have a gun and a badge anymore—or at least not a badge—but he certainly has tools.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

This is an important moment in Iran: people are out in the streets, demanding change; the dictatorship is murdering them by the thousands. I definitely wanted to talk with Marina Nemat, a woman I have known and admired for many years.She is a dissident from Iran. Since 1991, she has lived in Canada. You will see, in our podcast, that she is in a picture-perfect Canadian setting—like from a movie. But her thoughts are with Iran.Marina was 13 when Khomeini’s revolution took power. At 16, she was arrested. For more than two years, she was kept in Evin Prison, one of the most horrific places on earth. I have heard Marina describe it as “the high school from hell.”In exile, she has published two books: Prisoner of Tehran and After Tehran: A Life Reclaimed. This summer, she will publish another book, a historical novel: Mistress of the Persian Boarding House.In our podcast, she remembers the revolutionary times of the late 1970s. And she relates those times to today. “Déjà vu,” she says. The end of the Islamic Republic may be at hand. Then again, it may persist, on and on. Who knows?Marina Nemat does know this: there needs to be a transition to democracy. Whether she will ever be able to return to her native country—even for a brief visit—she can’t know.“My grandmother escaped the Russian Revolution in 1917,” she says. “She died when I was seven. So, this is 53 years ago.” Marina continues:“I remember, before her death, before she got sick, she always said, ‘The communist murderers will be gone and I will go home one day.’ And she never did. She was buried in Tehran.”Over the years, at various turns, I have done several podcasts with Marina Nemat. I have always found a conversation with her not only informative but moving, too. I bet you will find the same. Grateful for Marina.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Many thanks to you. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

When it comes to questions of U.S. foreign policy—when it comes to questions of world affairs in general—there are certain people I always want to hear from. One of them is Nick Burns—R. Nicholas Burns—the veteran U.S. diplomat.Let me quote from my introduction to this new Q&A:He is what you might call a “generalist.” He has served in many capacities and many places. He has studied, and worked on, a wide range of issues.When he was a new Foreign Service officer, he was in Africa and the Middle East. At the White House, he worked in Soviet, then Russian, affairs. He was State Department spokesman. He was ambassador to Greece, and ambassador to NATO. He was an undersecretary of state. Most recently—from 2022 to 2025—he was ambassador to China.Before going to China, he taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Where he is once more.In our Q&A, we range widely, with Burns speaking crisply and analytically and me kind of sputtering and emoting. But I very much enjoyed our conversation—and learned from it—and I believe others will too.We talk about China: the government’s aims, the persecution of the Uyghurs, the shackling of Hong Kong, the fate of Taiwan.We talk about Ukraine and Russia. And about NATO and Europe.And, of course, we talk about the United States: our character, our choices.Maybe I could paste a few samples, paraphrasing Mr. Burns. At the outset of our conversation, I ask whether China aspires to be a global hegemon, in addition to a regional one.Burns:I don’t think the Chinese, in their heart of hearts, believe that they can be the world’s greatest power in five to ten years. But I do think that’s an aspiration. You know, they’re very fixed on anniversaries. And 2049 will mark the centennial of the takeover of China by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party.So, to be a global hegemon—or the global hegemon—by that year is one of the Party’s ambitions.“But even sooner than that,” Burns continues, “there’s no question in my mind that China wishes to become—aims to become, is determined to become—the strongest power in the Indo-Pacific.” And “that means overtaking the United States.”Charles Krauthammer used to say that decline is a choice—for us Americans, that is. Does Burns agree? Yes, “because there’s human agency,” he says, “and we determine, in a democracy, what our priorities are.”At times, the United States has been outward-looking, and at other times, inward-looking. We had better be careful where, and how, we look.Burns became U.S. ambassador to NATO in August 2001. On September 12, members of the alliance invoked Article 5—which says, in essence, “An attack on one is an attack on all.” President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, remarked to Burns, “It’s good to have friends in the world.”In our Q&A, Burns says,We are so powerful—and I’m proud that we’re powerful, I love our country, I want us to be strong—but we often need friends in the world. If we try to go it alone, against Putin or Xi Jinping ...Burns continues,China is a peer power, in all senses. Russia is a peer power in the nuclear-weapons realm. But if you add our allies—the European allies and NATO, the East Asian allies—we democratic countries are stronger. We can keep the peace through deterrence. And that’s probably the most important lesson I’ve learned since I started as a lowly intern for the State Department in West Africa in 1980.Here is Burns on Taiwan: “I do not believe that the takeover of Taiwan by the government of the People’s Republic is inevitable.” He elaborates.Here is Burns on the war in Europe:It’s disheartening to see the United States position itself as some kind of neutral mediator between the aggressor, Putin, and the victim, Zelensky; the aggressor, the Russian state, and the victim, the people of Ukraine. We have to be on the side of the people of Ukraine, because Putin has crossed the most important red line in global politics: You cannot go into someone else’s country and overtake it by force and get away with it—especially given Russia’s history and Soviet history over the last 100 years or so.These days, the U.S. State Department acts like a branch of the Republican National Committee. Last month, the department issued the following pronouncement:This Thanksgiving, we’re grateful for President Trump. Because of his bold and visionary leadership, our nation commands respect on the world stage.Six days later, the department issued another pronouncement:This morning, the State Department renamed the former Institute of Peace to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history.Welcome to the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. The best is yet to come.Nick Burns has served under six presidents and nine secretaries of state—Republicans and Democrats. And he knows you take an oath to the Constitution, not to a party or man. He is stirring on this subject, in our Q&A, as on all the other subjects.Which include the U.S. Agency for International Development and our “radios”—including Radio Free Asia, which meant a lot to people in China, among other countries. Says Burns,I don’t get it. We’re in a competition with China, and we have just basically destroyed the institutions that were helping us to compete.At the end of our conversation, Burns puts in a word for immigration—one of the things that have “made us a great, great nation.” Nick’s paternal grandparents came from Ireland, poor as hell. Teenagers, both. Their grandson has represented America in capitals all over the world.If I had my way, he’d be secretary of state. But his students at the Kennedy School are lucky to have him, and we in podcast-land are lucky to have him too. I could edit this podcast to make it sleek(er)—but I have left in my fumblings and ramblings and interruptions. There are technical glitches, too—some “freezing,” some inadvertent self-muting. Moreover, the podcast could be shorter, tighter.But I am presenting it “as is,” and I will now stop typing and let you listen, when you have the time.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Great thanks. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

In my introduction to this Q&A, I say,... our guest today is David Frum, the writer. What does he write? Books and articles, about history, politics, culture, and so on. He is almost the definition of a generalist.He works for The Atlantic and hosts The David Frum Show. He can be found at DavidFrum.com.Also, he and I are old colleagues and friends. And yet, I learned something, during our latest Q&A. He went to the National Music Camp, in Interlochen, Michigan, in the summer of ’76. I myself am an Interlochen kid. (My first summer there was ’77.)David was at camp on July 4, 1976, America’s bicentennial day. That was also the day of the raid on Entebbe—the military operation in which Israeli commandos rescued hostages at the airport in Uganda. David’s mother called him at camp, to tell him this news.Barbara Frum, let me say, was one of the most prominent newscasters in Canada (where David was brought up).Our subject in this latest Q&A is both a timely one and a timeless one (unfortunately): antisemitism. (Isn’t that a dumb word, by the way, for Judenhass, or hatred of Jews? And yet, David explains, it is a useful one in our time.)Earlier this week, David tweeted,Republicans are having a big, public argument about the antisemitism that has contaminated their party. Democrats aren’t.He added,“Their antisemites are vile neo-Nazis. Our antisemites bring exciting new energy to our party!”In our Q&A, we talk about Nick Fuentes and the Right, and Zohran Mamdani and the Left. (I do not mean to equate Fuentes and Mamdani, let me quickly say.) We talk about how Left and Right draw near to each other, or blend. We talk about what antisemitism is—its nature.Can there be anti-Zionism without antisemitism? In theory, sure. Populism without antisemitism, nationalism without antisemitism? Of course. But in practice ...The world is lousy with conspiracy theories. Not all of them relate to Jews, needless to say. But funny how conspiracy theories tend to veer, before long, in one direction ...In this conversation, David Frum talks both intellectually and personally. One can learn a lot. And though our subject is deadly serious, there are streaks of humor.I am grateful, as always, to and for David.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Great thanks. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

In my introduction to this Q&A, I say,... our guest today is a college student—a senior at Stanford—and a journalist already, believe it or not. We have known each other for some time. He is John R. Puri—more formally, John Raj Puri.Isn’t that a great moniker?John comes from Des Moines, where he has seen the Iowa caucuses up close. Early on, he was drawn to politics and public affairs. When he was in elementary school, he learned the names of the presidents, in order—their full names, including middle names. When John was eight, his brother and his parents dressed up as Batman characters for Halloween. John dressed up as Richard Nixon.You think I’m kidding? Photographic proof, thank you very much:Later, when John learned more about Mr. Nixon, he decided that, if he had been a voter in 1972, he would have voted for John Ashbrook in the Republican presidential primaries.In due course (a Buckley phrase), John found, well, William F. Buckley Jr., Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, George F. Will, and others.Doing this Q&A, I ask John about politics on campus, to the extent that politics plays a part in campus life. (How big a part, really, is the question.) I also ask him what concerns him the most, in the arena of politics. His answer: the durability of our “constitutional design.” He is a man of 1776 and 1789, he says (alluding to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution).John R. Puri, it seems to me, is a throwback of a conservative—a wonderful throwback—and he may well give you hope for the future, as he does me.“I’m glad you exist,” I tell him at the end. I sure am.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Great thanks. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

This new Q&A has two guests. With me gabbing too, it is a three-way convo. My guests are Bill Kristol and David French, those sharp and experienced political writers, and two of the people I most value.You are, by now, familiar with “the Politico story”—the report from Politico about Young Republican leaders and what they say in their private (formerly private) chats.This is dark, obnoxious stuff—to call it illiberal would be kind.I have written a column about this matter, here. In it, I ask some questions that I have now put to Kristol and French: Was it ever thus? Can you draw a straight line from Reagan conservatism to Trumpism and today’s GOP?(I say no—firmly, vehemently no.)In our Q&A, we talk about our experiences in college and grad school. We ask: Was the “Reagan Right” a “real Right”? Or was it an exceptional, ephemeral Right, a classical-liberal Right, now engulfed by nationalism, populism, and worse?In 2002, not long after 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror, Michael Walzer wrote a famous essay, famously titled: “Can There Be a Decent Left?” Well, can there be? Can there be a decent Right?We address those questions, too.Between the wars, in 1935, Sinclair Lewis wrote his novel It Can’t Happen Here. I always resented this book, starting with its title (an ironic one). My former resentment aside: Can it? Can Americans be seduced by fascism and other dark isms, same as other peoples?David French, in particular, notes the rising popularity of Nick Fuentes. I mention Fuentes in my column today. He is more popular, more influential, than should make any of us comfortable.A free society, an open society, is a relative rarity in human history. We wonder—French, Kristol, and I—whether we can “keep” this republic (to borrow Franklin’s word).You can learn a great deal from Bill Kristol and David French. I long have. Make time for this meandering, meaty discussion. I think you will find it worthwhile.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Great thanks. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe

Julian Prégardien is a tenor from Germany—despite his French-looking name. On his father’s side, he is Belgian, Italian, and Dutch. “A true European,” he says, a real mixture. One of his ancestors is Sweelinck, an important composer in pre-Bach days.I talked with Prégardien at the Salzburg Festival, while conducting interviews for the Salzburg Festival Society. He was singing Mozart at the festival. And in this sit-down, I open with a question about Mozart.Prégardien is fascinating on this composer, as on several others. I will paraphrase:I think the challenge that comes with singing Mozart is that you better follow his idea and not exaggerate your own idea about what is in the music. Mozart is something that lies perfectly between subjectivity and objectivity of expression. To serve Mozart is quite a challenge: vocally, mentally, artistically, and as a human being.Mozart can never be about you. It has to be about the composer and his ideas.Prégardien is a leading Don Ottavio, a character in Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni, and many people think that Ottavio is a thankless part (despite two great arias). Ottavio is thought of as weak and bland.Comments Julian Prégardien:I would say the image of Don Ottavio reveals a problem of our modern society, because to say that a supportive man is weak is something we should have overcome in the 21st century.Don Giovanni should not be adored, because he’s the bad guy. Don Ottavio’s the good guy. He is husband material.Mozart and Da Ponte [his librettist] are holding up a mirror to society. They are saying, “I bet you like Don Giovanni more than you do Don Ottavio. You better think about that.”Prégardien grew up in Limburg, a medieval town in Hesse. Limburg was spared bombing in World War II. Prégardien owns an apartment in a house built in the 15th century.He was part of the boys’ choir in town, a choir co-founded by his grandfather. Interesting man, his grandfather. Owing to an accident, he had a wooden leg. He sold walking sticks. He met a woman who sold umbrellas and walking sticks, and she became his wife, Julian’s grandmother.They had a son Christoph, Julian’s father—one of the greatest lyric tenors of our time.Did Christoph teach Julian? He had the good sense to let the boy go his own way. Naturally, Christoph was an influence on Julian. He “idolized” his father, he tells us, and still does. But Julian is not a carbon copy. Each singer is his own man.By the way, father and son don’t argue about who has the more beautiful voice. They agree: Christoph’s father, and Julian’s grandfather, had the most beautiful tenor voice of them all.I ask Julian, “Did you listen to any pop singers growing up?” Oh, yes, many. He names some German singers, including Herbert Grönemeyer. There was also the Kelly Family. And boy bands, including NSYNC, Caught in the Act, and the Backstreet Boys. Prégardien also mentions Nirvana and Kurt Cobain.A special treat is that the tenor sings a line or two of a few songs. Pop singers are lucky that Prégardien doesn’t encroach on their territory, professionally.As he is moving on the subject of Mozart, he is moving—very moving—on the subject of Bach. He has sung Bach his entire life. He and Bach have been constant companions.Prégardien says,He is a miracle. He was a giver all of his life. It was never about him. He signed most of his music “Soli Deo gloria” [Glory to God alone]. The buildings that he can construct with his music are both human and divine.We also talk about Schubert. And the fortunes and fashions of the music industry. At the end, I ask him to give me some of his favorite singers. He names quite an assortment.Andreas Scholl, the countertenor. Thomas Hampson, the baritone. Bryn Terfel, the bass-baritone. (His Rodgers & Hammerstein album!) The sopranos Pia Davila, Sabine Devieilhe, Dorothee Mields, and Jeanine De Bique. And Frank Sinatra and Amy Winehouse.And his father, Christoph.On all of these people, and on our various subjects, Julian Prégardien is thoughtful and interesting. One can learn a lot from him. And simply enjoy him. I’ll stop typing now and let you listen.Q&A is the podcast of this site, Onward and Upward. The site is supported by readers and listeners. To receive new articles and episodes—and to support the work of the writer and podcaster—become a free or paid subscriber. Great thanks. Get full access to Onward and Upward at www.jaynordlinger.com/subscribe