Race42008 is pleased to present the following interview with John Derbyshire.

John Derbyshire is a native of the United Kingdom and a columnist for National Review Online. Derb, as he is often referred to by his NRO colleagues, earned a degree in mathematics from University College London. An accomplished writer, Derb’s 1996 work, Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream, was a New York Times “Notable Book of the Year.” Prime Obsession, a more recent work, was awarded the Mathematical Association of America’s inaugural Euler Book Prize.

____________________________________________________________________________

DG: First, how would you describe your political philosophy? Which prominent conservative thinkers are your greatest influences? Or, to put it another way, if I were to write a pithy description of a Derbyshire-style conservative — a “Derbocon,” if you will — just exactly how would such a political animal be defined?

John Derbyshire: Conservatism, to me, means a way of thinking about human affairs that strives to see human nature clearly. Conservatives favor those ideas about politics, society, law, and culture that enable human beings, flawed and fallen creatures as we are, but as we are, to live together in reasonable comity. Most such ideas need centuries to “cook,” so we place most trust in traditional and customary attitudes and practices.

Derbocons detest and eschew wishful thinking about human nature. Though always willing to listen to modest schemes for advancing manners and attitudes, we reject grand sweeping plans for improving humanity at large. We like both liberty and order, but liberty a bit more. We think liberty is best guaranteed in a well-established nation-state with a good body of common preferences and understandings, and just one common language. We think order is best maintained by strict laws, interpreted by judges strongly committed to political independence and stuffed up to the nose-holes with professional amour propre. We don’t really like politics much, and do not think it should be very important.

My greatest influence has been Samuel Johnson.

DG: Let’s move on to the race for 2008. Many conservative commentators have claimed that conservatism is in crisis, that the GOP field leaves much to be desired, and that, to put it crudely, “they all suck.” Do you concur with this assessment of the Republican field?

JD: No. I think it is an exceptionally rich field. You have a good range of political types there, including at least one classic conservative Ron Paul. This is politics, remember “Show business for ugly people,” as Jay Leno says. You should always have low expectations of politicians. As politicians go, though, I think this is a good, varied batch.

DG: In your commentary on National Review Online, you often, at least indirectly, allude favorably to the GOP frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. What are your thoughts on the mayor? Do you believe he is an acceptable presidential choice for conservatives?

JD: Yes, I like Rudy. He’s an arrogant, ruthless son of a bitch, a power-hungry bully with a mean streak the width of the Asteroid Belt. I like that in a presidential candidate. Ronald Reagan gave me a lifetime’s supply of sappy uplift delivered with actor-school Throaty Voice No. 5. Poppy Bush convinced me that affectless managerialism can do nothing to advance conservative interests. Bill Clinton proved that boomers are scum, as if it needed proving. Bush Jr. I looked forward to as an empty suit with an empty head, but basically sound instincts patriotic and so on who would do a lot of nothing, nothing being the thing I most wanted my president to do at that point. Well, see how that worked out. Let’s try the son of a bitch.

DG: In at least two of the recent televised debates of the Republican presidential candidates, the candidates have been questioned regarding their views on evolution. As a man of science and empiricism, do you feel this question is relevant to applicants for the office of the presidency? Are you alarmed that one-third of the GOP field self-identifies as disbelievers in evolution?

JD: No, and no. I couldn’t care less what the president thinks about evolution. Other things being equal, I’d prefer to vote for a guy who gave some credence to 150 years of careful scientific enquiry. Other things are never equal, though, and I can’t imagine this ever being a deal-breaker for me. I wrote about this here.

DG: At the most recent GOP presidential debate, Mitt Romney outlined his vision for the Republican Party. According to Romney, the GOP should be a party that promotes a strong economy, a strong military, and strong families. While certainly no one advocates weak families, some would argue that the “strong families” category is a catch-all that would perpetuate the big-government bossiness that has come out of the national GOP in recent years. Is Romney’s vision for American conservatism one that a Derbocon would support?

JD: No. In the matter of “social conservatism,” I believe very strongly that the federal government should leave law-abiding citizens alone. The strength or weakness of our families is none of their business, and anything they tried to do about it would screw things up. Anything they try to do about anything mostly screws things up. To be fair to Romney, he was just making noises here “sending signals.” At least half the GOP candidates would be just as much inclined to busybody meddling in our private lives as Romney. He’s not my candidate, but he’s not the worst of the bunch.

DG: Fred Thompson: conservative savior or past his prime?

JD: I’d think better of him if he had jumped in manfully with the rest of them, instead of engaging in this coy shall-I-shan’t-I toe-dipping. So far as personality and ideas are concerned, he’d probably do all right as president, though I personally might come down with a bad case of throaty-voiced sappiness overload.

DG: Every single GOP presidential contender not named McCain has voiced opposition to McCain’s immigration bill. What sort of immigration legislation would you prefer the GOP candidates to spearhead?

JD: First and foremost, I want a president who will vigorously enforce current laws against illegal entry and visa over-stayers. Then I’d like to see legislation to (A) abolish EOIR deportation first, due process later, (B) end chain migration spouse and dependent children only, (C) end birthright citizenship, and (D) set very low numbers, and very high standards, for settlement. We need another 40-year pause, like the one from 1924 to 1965, so we can get some assimilation done.

DG: Which Democratic presidential candidate would be LEAST harmful to our nation as president?

JD: Mike Gravel. The guy will be 78 at inauguration, so how much harm can he do? And Alaska has that libertarian streak. (Yeah, yeah, I know everybody up there works for the feddle gubmint. Outside office hours, though, they hunt down revenuers with long guns. Trust me on this.) And this is one of only two candidates who’s pledged to eliminate the IRS. What’s not to like?

DG: Which Republican presidential candidate would you LEAST like to see win the nomination? Are there any candidates who would make you consider voting Democratic, or perhaps for a third-party candidate in the general election?

JD: John McCain, just for his blinkered stupidity on immigration. I can’t actually imagine voting Democratic, even in a Gravel-McCain matchup. I can imagine not voting, though, and I can certainly imagine voting for a Third Party candidate. I’m a conservative. The GOP is not really, most of the time, a very conservative party. It’s only that once in a while they will throw a bone to conservatives, while the Dems never will. I feel no strong loyalty to the GOP a thing that sometimes gets me into trouble at National Review. A real conservative, of proven executive ability and clear principles, running on a Third Party ticket, would get my vote. Alas, no-one comes to mind.

DG: Finally, the GOP field is engaged in a dance-of-sorts when it comes to all things Bush. The president’s unpopularity has forced the candidates to keep the president at an arm’s length, but neither can the contenders afford to alienate those Americans who still support GWB. This dynamic has surfaced in the debate over Scooter Libby. What stance would you like to see the field take with regard to Scooter Libby? Do you think he should be pardoned?

JD: Outside the DC cocktail circuit, nobody gives a fig about Scooter Libby. He’ll spend a few months playing tennis and browsing the library at Club Fed, then he’ll come out, his vast circle of rich and powerful pals will rally round, he’ll get a book deal, and in six months he’ll be making far more than you or I could ever hope to. If he’s the victim of anything don’t ask me, I’ve never been able to summon up enough interest to find out it’s just part of some game these high fliers play down there in DC. It’s of no concern or importance to ordinary citizens just a Beltway thing. Not having any interest in whether Libby is the victim of injustice or not, I can’t have any sensible opinion about whether he should be pardoned or not. I wouldn’t lose a nanosecond’s sleep either way.

The world is full of injustice and cruelty far too full for anyone (other than Libby’s family and friends, of course) to bother with some well-padded high roller who lost a couple of hands playing at the premier table.

Actually, the first question that ever came to my mind about Scooter Libby, and to which I have still heard no satisfactory answer, is: Why does the Vice President need a chief of staff? The Vice President has nothing to do, other than go take a nap in the Senate chamber now and then. Yet I saw Libby’s position described somewhere as “enormously influential.” You might, if you worked on it, persuade me that the Vice President needs a chauffeur. But a “chief of staff”? Who is “enormously influential”? Something’s gone badly wrong with this republic. Where did I put Ron Paul’s phone number?

On the larger Bush question: the one thing I have learned about Bush that I didn’t know seven, or even three, years ago, is how extraordinarily resistant he is to hearing anything he doesn’t want to hear. This is not a guy willing to change his mind about anything. “Stubborn” just doesn’t cover it. I think it has been this, more than anything else, that’s brought him down. But my colleague Rick Brookhiser, who knows absolutely everything about American history he could tell you the color of Millard Fillmore’s socks tells me that every president’s second term is a failure, so perhaps we are just seeing the large currents of History at work here.