SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home In Remembrance of James Q. Wilson

POLITICS MARCH 3, 2012

In Remembrance of James Q. Wilson

Jim Wilson opted to spend his last couple of years at Boston College, and I, and all my colleagues, were enriched by his presence. Jim, of course, was a conservative, and I am a liberal. But before I go on about how we nonetheless saw eye to eye on this issue or that, there was something else he represented that I both admired and, to the best of my ability, tried to emulate. The best way I can say it is that Jim was old-fashioned.

At a time when number-crunching and rational choice theorizing held sway in political science, even at Ivy League universities that once seemed to resist such trends, Jim practiced a social science dealing with real world complexities and matters of deep concern to ordinary citizens. Here at Boston College, where a number of my colleagues were Wilsonians (not of the presidential variety), we think of ourselves as doing old-fashioned political science very much in his spirit. Now we shall have to carry on without him.

Jim was, of course, aware of my disagreements with him. I know he was especially proud of his book The Moral Sense and felt that my critical review, published in TNR, did not give it sufficient justice. Yet his unfailing politeness never failed to make its appearance when we were on a panel discussion together or shared a dinner. His wife Roberta was equally gracious to me every time we met. These are people, I said to myself, who know the meaning of courtesy—and appreciate its importance as a virtue for our body politic.

The past few days I have been following the discussion in the blogosphere concerning Andrew Breitbart and whether one should refrain from saying anything critical about the recently departed. I know where I stand in theory on that question; when Jerry Falwell died, I opted not to hold back my strongly negative opinions about the man when I commented on his passing. No such dilemma would ever present itself in the case of James Q. Wilson. This was a man who taught, and taught brilliantly, to the very end of his life. Much of what he taught concerned burning matters of public policy. But he also taught about what it means to be a person, a thinker, and a colleague. To say that he will be missed barely gets at the loss.

Alan Wolfe’s Political Evil: What it is And How to Combat It was published by Knopf in September.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

Doubtless a decent man overall, and a superb social scientist, but his views toward women and changing sexual mores seem to have been a bit more than old-fashioned. One of his appearances on Buckley's "Firing Line" back in the 1980's sticks in my memory. Somehow the conversation got around to the cult movie "Blue Velvet" and Wilson's comment was (more or less): "Haven't we in a sense come full circle when the product of Ingrid Bergman's adulterous relationship, Roberta Rosellini, stars in an X-rated movie?"

- lfeinber@email.unc.edu

March 4, 2012 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I am much further to the left than either Wolfe or Wilson, I always respected Wilson's ability to engage with the problems of everyday social life and not retreat into "theory." In this way, Wilson, despite his content, was far closer to the spirit of C.Wright Mills than the hordes of Zizek and Negri readers in academia. And having heard him speak at the AEI a couple years ago, I couldn't help but be struck by his generosity and fairness in presenting views he disagreed with. As Wilson once described himself, he was to the right of academia and slightly to the left of the general public. I think this more accurately describes his political and social stances than "neoconservative."

- cansv

March 5, 2012 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wonderful article. I will argue for the 50/50 scale for evaluating a person's legacy. How well did they talk their talk? (50% of grade). How well did they walk their talk? (50% of grade). While I am not a Christian (and certainly don't think Jesus was the "Son of God" if such a person as Jesus Christ even actually existed -- not a slam dunk), the lasting appeal of Christianity is presumably because the man or myth is portrayed as talking a good talk and walking a good walk.

- skahn

March 5, 2012 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

James Q. Wilson was not only brilliant, he was right on the issues. Until he came along, conservatism was a faith. Wilson backed conservatism with empirical evidence of the highest quality. He was a veritable Galileo of politics in that that he overthrew liberal piety with science. I respect Alan Wolfe for paying homage to James Q. Wilson. Prof. Wolfe can see the promised land of truth, but something holds him back from entering it.

- bulbman1066

March 5, 2012 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close