Classical Architecture and Human Flourishing

Summary

The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour

Episode: Classical Architecture and Human Flourishing
Date: April 4, 2025
Host: Scott Bertram
Guests: Dr. Miles Smith (Assistant Professor of History, Hillsdale College), Justin Shubo (President, National Civic Art Society)

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the vital importance of beauty and tradition in public architecture, as well as the broader civic value of a free and diverse press. Host Scott Bertram moderates two core discussions: first, with Dr. Miles Smith on the American free press tradition and its current challenges, and then with Justin Shubo on the role of classical architecture in American identity, recent federal policy, and the direction under the new Trump administration.

---

Segment 1: America’s Free Press Tradition

Guest: Dr. Miles Smith
Timestamps: 00:48–19:37

Key Points & Insights

• U.S. vs. Europe on Free Press:

  • The U.S. is unique due to the First Amendment; unlike many European nations, the government does not referee speech or press.
  • Quote: “In the United States, the [government] is sort of on the same playing field with all other speakers… the government doesn’t get to decide what information is true.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 01:41)

• Historical Context:

  • Early presidents, like George Washington, faced harsh press criticism but often exercised restraint, understanding their role was not to regulate the media.
  • Quote: “Washington takes not necessarily a hands off approach. He just doesn’t think he necessarily has hands that can mess with the press.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 02:33)

• Expertise and Government Overreach:

  • The tendency for “experts” to dominate the narrative stems from a progressive-era view that government and its expertise supersede citizen or press autonomy.
  • Quote: “A free press isn’t actually the highest… value for them. Reform… is. It means that government’s really the highest value.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 03:37)

• The Messiness (and Value) of a Free Press:

  • The multiplicity of opinions is vital—even if messy—because it allows for open dialogue, protects liberty, and helps prevent tyranny.
  • Quote: “The point of a free press is for the people to have those voices, not for the people to be told what’s true.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 04:30)
  • Quote: “If you only have one voice, you probably don’t have a lot of freedom.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 05:30)

• Debate over Licensing Journalists:

  • The notion that journalists should be licensed (like doctors) was dismissed as fundamentally opposed to American founding values.
  • Quote: “The idea that the government would be some sort of referee over saying who could be a journalist would strike [the Founders] as crazy… Journalism is supposed to be free.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 07:18)

• State Support and Potential Conflicts:

  • State-funded or subsidized media create inherent conflicts and undermine media autonomy.
  • Quote: “If the people don’t want to read something, why should the government decide that the people get to read it?” (Dr. Miles Smith, 09:27)

• Press Freedom in Wartime and the Post-9/11 Era:

  • Government deference to press freedom diminishes in wartime or perceived emergencies; since 9/11, this has become a semi-permanent state.
  • Self-policing among journalists has historically been the norm, rather than state censorship.

• Media as Government Mouthpiece, Especially During COVID:

  • When the press acts as a “government information service,” it destroys its credibility and frustrates citizens seeking independent voices.
  • Quote: “The government’s voice is supposed to be treated as just one among many… If you try to shut down the voices, the American people… sniff that out and say, I don’t think you care about the truth. I think you care about control.” (Dr. Miles Smith, 15:24)

• Changing Journalistic Training:

  • An ideological homogeneity in journalism schools fuels consensus narratives, leaving little room for genuine reporting or skepticism, as seen during the COVID era.

---

Segment 2: Classical Architecture and Civic Identity

Guest: Justin Shubo
Timestamps: 22:37–40:26

The Importance of Beauty and Tradition

• Public Buildings as Symbols:

  • Architecture and artwork reflect national ideals, historic memory, and sense of self.
  • Quote: “These speak to our identity, our ideals, who we are and who we wish to be… At their best, [monuments] crystallize historic memory, speak to our national identity.” (Justin Shubo, 22:54)
  • References Churchill’s view: “We shape our buildings; thereafter, they shape us.” (24:11)

• Classical vs. Modernist Architecture: Emotional & Social Impact

  • Classical buildings (e.g., Lincoln Memorial) use columns, marble, steps—drawing on ancient traditions to inspire and ennoble.
  • Modernist (especially “brutalist”) buildings embody bureaucracy, facelessness, and sometimes even sinister qualities.
  • Quote: “[Brutalist buildings] embody faceless bureaucracy. This is not the image of America that… ordinary people wish to see.” (Justin Shubo, 24:44)
  • The move away from classical design post-WWII is described as a “wrong turn.”

• Cost Myths:

  • Shubo debunks the idea that classical architecture is necessarily more expensive; federal data show comparable costs with modernist buildings. (28:22)

Federal Policy and the Trump Administration

• Trump’s First Term:

  • Executive order at term’s end prioritized classical/traditional architecture for federal buildings, especially in D.C.; also called for public input.
  • Order was quickly rescinded by the incoming Biden administration, largely due to pressure from the architectural establishment and elite opinion.
  • Quote: “As a case in point, the New York Times… published an editorial titled ‘What’s So Great About Fake Roman Temples?’” (29:01)

• Trump’s Second Term Outlook:

  • A new memorandum asks the GSA to consider classical, historic, and regional styles; an improved executive order is expected soon, with broad public support across the political spectrum.
  • Quote: “72% of the people surveyed preferred classical and traditional design… this genuinely shouldn’t be a partisan issue.” (Justin Shubo, 35:08)

The World War I Memorial: A New Model

• Shubo’s Role:
  • Advocated for an open design competition and requirements that focused on heroism and valor, counterbalancing a trend toward memorials to victimhood.
  • Highlighted Sabin Howard’s winning classical design as emotionally rich, heroic, and unashamedly patriotic, showing that the classical tradition is “alive and well.”
  • Quote: “It’s a beautiful, inspiring design… At the end… there is a victory parade… with America on the ascendant…” (Justin Shubo, 31:37)

The Role of the National Endowment for the Arts

• Vision for the NEA:
  • Shubo calls for the NEA to support great art that reflects beauty and national values rather than ephemeral trends.
  • Quote: “A great nation deserves great art.” (Justin Shubo, quoting Dana Gioia, 37:37)
  • Criticizes contemporary art’s lack of meaning: “You’re more likely to see a banana duct-taped to the wall than a piece of art that is beautiful, profound, or moving.” (Justin Shubo, 38:31)

Classical Advocacy vs. Modernist Critique

• Not Just Nostalgia:
  • Shubo emphasizes both a rejection of soulless modernism and a positive embrace of classical forms, which he believes more genuinely resonate with human nature.
  • Quote: “I believe that [the classical] tradition is unsurpassed in its beauty, its harmony, its ability to make us feel at home in the world.” (Justin Shubo, 39:04)
  • Notes that people vacation and live where traditional architecture prevails—evidence of its deep appeal.

---

Memorable Quotes

• “The point of a free press is for the people to have those voices, not for the people to be told what’s true.”
  — Dr. Miles Smith (04:30)

• “These [public buildings and monuments] speak to our identity, our ideals, who we are and who we wish to be.”
  — Justin Shubo (22:54)

• “72% of the people surveyed preferred classical and traditional design… this genuinely shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”
  — Justin Shubo (35:08)

• “You’re more likely to see a banana duct-taped to the wall than a piece of art that is beautiful, profound, or moving.”
  — Justin Shubo (38:31)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:41 – Dr. Smith on First Amendment differences between U.S. and Europe
• 02:33 – Washington’s historical approach to the free press
• 04:30 – The true purpose of a free press explained
• 07:18 – Founders’ likely reaction to licensing journalists
• 15:24 – Dangers of suppressing non-government voices in the media
• 22:54 – Shubo on why architecture/beauty in public spaces matters
• 24:44 – Classical vs. modernist monument design impact
• 28:22 – Cost comparison of classical and modern architecture
• 31:37 – The World War I memorial as a return to heroism and the classical tradition
• 35:08 – Federal policy shifts and public preferences on architecture

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers an engaging discussion of the philosophical and practical stakes behind America’s built environment and freedom of the press. It argues that classical beauty in architecture powerfully shapes civic identity and human flourishing, and affirms that a truly free press—messy as it may be—remains vital for liberty and self-government. Both themes intersect around the importance of pluralism, tradition, and cultural confidence in shaping America’s future.

Transcript

[Justin Shubo]

From the historic campus of Hillsdale College.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

In Hillsdale, Michigan, where the good, the.

[Scott Bertram]

True and the beautiful are taught, nurtured.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

And honored, this is the Radio Free.

[Scott Bertram]

Hillsdale Hour, bringing the activity and education.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Of the college to listeners across the country.

[Justin Shubo]

A beautiful building can enliven our day, inspire us, ennoble the United States, make us feel like this is a world built for beings like us. And in the same way, beautiful public art can also inspire and, you know, become the sorts of images that are iconic, you know, symbols of the United States.

[Scott Bertram]

This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. That was Justin Scubo, president of the National Civic Art Society. We'll talk with Justin a little bit later on in today's program about the classical tradition in public art and architecture and why it's important. First, we're joined by Dr. Miles Smith. He is assistant professor of history here at Hillsdale College. Dr. Smith, thanks for joining us.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Thank you, Scott.

[Scott Bertram]

We are discussing today an essay you wrote for Law and Liberty. People can find it at Law, America's Free press tradition. You start with an anecdote from recent times about the press in the U.K. how would you describe the distinction between how the U.S. government and European counterparts handle relations with the press?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

So there is no First Amendment in the United Kingdom. There's no First Amendment in most of the countries that are NATO allies. And so what it is to be a free press is somewhat different in the United States. The difference is that in the United States, the is sort of on the same playing field with all other speakers. It means that the government's not the referee of what's free. The government doesn't get to sort of decide what information is true. The government is a player on the court, if you will, with all the other institutions of the press and all the other institutions of speech. And the only way to think about what makes the government different is it happens to be carrying a gun.

[Scott Bertram]

Let's go back to the very early days of the country. Our first president, George Washington, you speak about in the essay. What was Washington's approach to the free press?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Well, it attacked him quite a bit in 1794 and 1795 when Washington was pursuing some sort of treaty with Great Britain. Editors who were sympathetic to his enemies said he was selling out the country. They accused him of sedition and treason and all of that. And so he wasn't necessarily always thrilled with the press, but he sort of says, and I include some of the quotes there he sort of makes a statement that even though the press can sort of get it wrong, a lot of times it's not my job to go tell them they're getting it wrong. I just have to kind of almost let bygones be guygones and let them do what they're going to do. So Washington takes not necessarily a hands off approach. He just doesn't think he necessarily has hands that can mess with the press in a specific way. He doesn't think that's the job of the federal state.

[Scott Bertram]

There are a few lines I wanted to pick out of here. You say the idea that governments are more trustworthy than citizens or the free press is specious. So why are the so called experts so often wrong?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Well, I think that they live downstream from this idea that government is sort of special, government's made of experts. And therefore, even though they kind of believe in a free press, they kind of believe that expert opinion matters more than the free press. And this is really downstream from the progressive era in the United States. And so a free press isn't actually sort of the highest sort of political value for them. Reforming whatever needs to be reformed or changing. Whatever needs to be changed is it means that government's really the highest value and what the government sort of sees as necessary rather than the freedom of the press or the freedom of speech broadly.

[Scott Bertram]

You also say that a free press makes occasional messes. Why is that? Okay, what's the ultimate benefit we receive as citizens, even if there's a few messes along the way?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

So the ultimate point of a free press is not to get the right information to the people. It's not to sort of litigate even truth. The point of a free press is a free press. And that means that that free press can be messy at times. It can get a lot of stuff wrong. But that's actually the point of the free press. I think a lot of people when they think, okay, well, isn't the poise of the press, isn't the point of the press to sort of find truth? Well, no, actually that's the point of something like church or universities. That's not the point of the press. The point of the press is to have active dialogue, active speech, all sorts of voices, good, bad and ugly, that sort of allow the people to discern truth. The point of a free press is for the people to have those voices, not for the people to be told what's true.

[Scott Bertram]

You write in this piece at Law and Liberty that the American press's very multiplicity of opinion in fact, strengthened the liberties of the United States and guarded them from tyranny. So how so?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Well, because the number of voices was important. Besides, because if you only have one voice, you probably don't have a lot of freedom. If you only have one sort of voicing, this is officially what we have to believe, then you probably don't have a free press. It's that multiplicity of opinions and voices that lets people know, hey, we're litigating this with complete freedom, or as close as complete freedom as we can get in the United States as Republican order. When you just have one voice, anytime you just have one opinion in the United States, historically, people get suspicious, and rightfully so. Right, because it's sort of impossible to imagine that in a country of, what, 340, 350 million people, there would be just one opinion on something. And so Americans are actually pretty good at freedom or have been for a long time. And so they figure out, hey, if there's only one opinion, that means that somebody's being told not to say something, somebody's sort of not as free as they might ought to be.

[Scott Bertram]

Dr. Miles Smith with us. Find this piece at LawLiberty.org, america's free press tradition. This idea of the multiplicity of opinions. I was at an event recently, four journalists, and the speaker, the panel was extolling the virtues of the free press. And it's the most important thing. And autocracies don't have a free press, but it's. It's so important that we have to be careful not to get things wrong. And that's why we need to license journalists. So the only people who have been trained to give Americans facts and opinions are the ones who can be journalists. Now, I could not follow that in my head. What would the founders have thought about this idea that journalists need to be licensed to practice the craft?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Oh, they would have thought it's ridiculous because it would be the government licensing people, and it's not the government's job to govern journalism. Journalism is supposed to be free. Free press is supposed to be free. So the idea that the government would be some sort of referee over saying who could be a journalist would strike them as crazy. And it's funny because they might have actually sort of appreciated the outcome of those of licensing journalists. John Adams makes the mistake of at least sort of leaning on journalists with the government, and he pays the electoral price for it. He's thrown out of office after one term. And so I think that the idea that journalism is something you can Even be a sort of licensed expert in is sort of ridiculous. The listeners can't see us, but we're smiling at each other, sort of almost laughing about the idea that what does a licensed journalist look like? Is it like dentistry? Is it like ophthalmology?

[Scott Bertram]

That's the comparison that was made. It's like we license doctors and we license this. And that's why. But it's a completely different idea. Idea.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Yeah. And the reason it's different is, of course, is because journalism is, is, is literature. You don't license people to be authors. Right. We don't go around saying, well, this person can be a children's author and this person can't. And the reason is because ideas aren't meant to be governed. Like say the military is meant to be governed. So anytime you, you license something, you're basically applying almost a sort of military or at least a state apparatus to it. And so how many people want to have a state governed media apparatus? That's essentially what you're asking for. When you're asking for licensing, you're asking for state media.

[Scott Bertram]

Down the similar road with there are individual states. Now, I know Illinois is doing this, but if California is doing this, we're providing tax credits or to journalistic organizations to hire more employees to do more reporting. When you have the state funding, even in a tax credit way, journalism itself, conflicts naturally are going to arise.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Yeah, I mean, journalism is governed, if you will, by the people. And so if the people don't want to read something, why should the government sort of decide that the people get to read it? If we are a government of the people, Bible people, and for the people, people get to decide what they're going to read without the intervening hand of the state. And so, yeah, I mean, the very notion of even state subsidized media is being questioned. I guess you saw there was the woman who runs NPR now. And so their funding is probably going to be, if not yanked and at least threatened significantly. Why? Because she stopped believing in her own press. And I mean that sort of tongue in cheek. She stopped believing in the press. That was sort of downstream from all the free speech commitments of the First Amendment. And the people don't like that. Americans don't like their media governed very much.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with Dr. Miles Smith about America's free press tradition more in just a moment. First, our brand new online course is now available. You can find it at hillsdale. Edu newcourse. And it's Understanding Capitalism taught to you by Dr. Charles Steele Herman A. And Suzanne S. Detwiler, professor of economics here at Hillsdale College. Capitalism is criticized today for unleashing greed and promoting self interest. We hear about crony capitalism and the corruption of corporate and political leaders who only want to turn a profit. But capitalism produces more total wealth and increases the standard of living for more people than any other economic system. This course, understanding Capitalism, will help you articulate what capitalism is, what it requires, why it leads to prosperity and human flourishing, and how to preserve capitalism against encroaching bureaucratic regulations and calls for socialism. The online course you can set up for free at any time. Take it at your own pace and learn something along the way. From Dr. Charles Steele, one of our economics professors, Understanding Capitalism is the brand new Hillsdale College online course at hillsdale. Edu newcourse c o u r s e that's hillsdale. Edu newcourse for understanding capitalism. We've been talking with Dr. Miles smith from Hillsdale's History department about a piece he wrote for Law and [e-mail] It's America's free press tradition. Dr. Smith, in the previous segment I was talking to you about this gathering of journalists in which one of the journalists suggested licensing journalists. You had to have a license to practice journalism. It was too important to the country not to have people trained and licensed to practice journalism mentioned. How ridiculous. We both found that. My students were also on hand that day. My students who were with me when the idea of licensing journalists came about were not perplexed, but they were confused. They hadn't heard it before. But this is not a new idea. Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois has been a big fan of licensing journalists now for at least a decade, and it bubbles up every now and then. You argue in your piece that American government's commitment to free press has always been most tenuous in wartime. Now we're not in wartime at the moment. How would you judge our current government's commitment to the free press?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Well, I think that since 911 there's kind of been almost a perpetual wartime in some ways. And so I don't think the press is necessarily as reflexively free as we'd like to think or as it should be. One of the things I think is interesting is that wartime is where you have an added excuse. You have this excuse of life and death. Well, if we let anybody print anything, they'll do X. And what's really interesting is historically the press has almost policed itself during wartime. You would have in the Civil War. You would have journalists basically sort of say, okay, I'm a committed to the free press, but I am also a citizen of the United States. And I want the United States government to have sort of the ability to run the war it needs to run. And so there was sort of a self policing on that. The idea that a journalist would just go publish, say the position of a unit that was sensitive or something like that, that's kind of ahistorical. It just never happens because journalists are people and they're oftentimes citizens. So just because I think we have this idea that journalists are some sort of stateless peoples, right? No, I think that actually historically journalists are rather patriotic and they care about their country. It's only recently sort of the en masse ideology about what journalism is has changed it. But I mean even the, the generation of even sort of lefty journalists, I think of like a guy like William Safire or someone like that in the era before our own, I can't imagine them just publishing where a group of soldiers might be sort of, you know, threatened or something. I can't imagine them doing that. So I think that we, what you see is not just since 9 11, but government doesn't trust the people and they don't trust the journalists anymore. So it's actually the state doesn't trust anybody anymore. Rather than sort of journalists just being these kind of walking security threats or something.

[Scott Bertram]

Same. There are reasons people don't necessarily trust journalists anymore. And we saw part of this throughout the COVID era, which in some ways is still ongoing. You write about this in this piece at Law and Liberty. Why is it dangerous for the media to act merely as I believe a phrase that you use in here, a government information service?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Well, because the government can get things wrong. And so if you preclude all other voices, you basically establish a paradigm in which the government gets to be God, doctor, church, scientist, everything without any pushback. And so the reason it's not good for the, the press to be a government information service is that the government's voice is supposed to be treated as just one among many. And you the good example now is Covid. They got a bunch of stuff wrong, but the like telemedia was so deeply wedded to the state during that season. You think about what was all sort of the legacy media people were carrying, that they destroyed any credibility they had with the people precisely because the people, it's not that they were unwilling to listen to arguments made by the government. It was that the government said we're the only argument that can be Right. And you can't listen to the other ones. That's what people were really upset about. And so it wasn't that everybody wanted to think that Joe Rogan was correct about, say, Ivermectin or something. It's that the government had basically implied that if you listen to Joe Rogan, you were sort of not an American or you were sort of unamerican. And so the idea is not that anybody is needing a specific voice to be right. It's that they want to let all the voices talk. And if you try to shut down the voices, the American people, I think, to their credit, sniff that out and say, I don't think you care about the truth. I think you care about control. And I think there's something rather noble about the American people. We give Americans a hard time a lot of times, but I think that's actually something that's rather noble. Americans probably, broadly have a better sense of what it is to have a free press tradition than the government does a lot of times.

[Scott Bertram]

Why do you think it was so easy for many in the free press, many media members, to so easily slip into that role?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

I can't remember any time when the press just was so devoted to a government polemic in my lifetime, I'm guessing my parents lifetime. And the press was an enemy of the government in Vietnam.

[Justin Shubo]

Right.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

I mean, the press is trying to actively push Lyndon Johnson. The same thing with. With Reagan, with Bush. So any important president. I don't know, I'd hate to just to think that the press, the legacy telemedia organizations, are just ideological crazies. That seems to be a part of it, though. They all were trained at the same places. Right. Their journalistic training was really ideological training. I mean, they're all. They go to what three schools was Missouri, Northwestern, so Mizzou Northwestern. What's the other schools with the nyu? Yeah, nyu. They're coming out of these three or four places, and there's an ideological bent to their training. And so what it is to be a journalist doesn't seem to mean the same thing. I mean, think about a guy like Joe Rogan who isn't meaningfully a journalist, but he kind of looks like what a journalist historically looks like, just sitting around sort of asking questions. I mean, if I were to present Joe Rogan as a ideal journalist at, say, NYU or Missouri, Northwestern, I'd probably get shouted down. It would be a ridiculous proposition. But it seems like he's done a better job getting information, or at least some information to the people. And so I think almost it's as if journalistic training has become ideological training rather than training to do journalism. And not being a journalist. That's just this is me kind of like, you know, throwing stuff into the wind and wondering. But it's a really good question. I can't remember anything like what we saw in Covid.

[Scott Bertram]

Dr. Myles Smith, his piece at Law and Liberty, America's free press tradition lawliberty.org Dr. Smith, Assistant professor of history here at Hillsdale College. Thanks for joining us on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Thank you, Scott.

[Scott Bertram]

Up next, Justin Scubo joins us. He's president of the National Civic Art Society. We'll talk about the importance of the classical tradition and public art and architecture and what might happen under the Trump administration. We also want to say hello and thank you for listening to new listeners on our new affiliate KOMY AM 1340 in Santa Cruz, California, home of Schoolhouse Radio. Thank you for tuning in to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. For a full list of radio affiliates across the country, head to radiohour.com hillsdale edu and click the affiliates button. Up next, Justin Shubo, I'm Scott Bertram. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. This show is a part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to your favorite. You'll get brand new episodes of all your favorite shows sent right to your device and you'll help us know that you're out there listening. Never miss another episode by going to Podcast Hillsdale. Edu subscribe. That's Podcast Hillsdale Edu subscribe or click the Follow or Subscribe button on Apple podcasts, Spotify or YouTube.

[Justin Shubo]

Great books, great people, great ideas. Learning about these things is critical to being a well educated human being and we can help with the Hillsdale Dialogues. Each week, Hillsdale College President Larry Arne joins radio veteran Hugh Hewitt to discuss topics of enduring relevance. And from time to time, they also talk about current events, but always with an eye toward more fundamental truths. And they want you to tune in to a conversation like no other. The Hillsdale Dialogues are posted every Monday on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at podcast hillsdale.edu. that's podcast hillsdale Edu. Or listen via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you find your audio.

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome back to the radio. Welcome to the Video Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to check out the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at podcast hillsdale.edu. find older episodes of this program plus all of Hillsdale College's audio Or look and search where you find your audio. We're joined by Justin Scubo. He is president of the National Civic Art Society, also former chairman of the U.S. commission of Fine Arts. You can find him at shubo.com, s h u b o w.com, and also civicart.com for the National Civic Art Society. Justin, thanks so much for joining us.

[Justin Shubo]

Thanks for having me. Great to be here.

[Scott Bertram]

I appreciate the time. We talk a little bit today about art and architecture, beauty. I want to begin by asking, why is this important? Why does beauty matter for public works and public monuments?

[Justin Shubo]

Well, I mean, public works, public buildings, public artwork. These speak to our identity, our ideals, who we are and who we wish to be. You know, you go to a monument or a memorial, and at their best, they crystallize historic memory, speak to our national identity. And more abstractly, we also see symbolism in our public buildings. I mean, you think of a building like the US Capitol or the Supreme Court. You know, Winston Churchill gave an incredible speech on the rebuilding of the House of Commons after it was bombed during World War II. And he said, we shape our buildings thereafter. They shape us. And an essential component of excellent buildings is their beauty. A beautiful building can enliven our day, inspire us, ennoble the United States, make us feel like this is a world built for beings like us. And in the same way, beautiful public art can also inspire and, you know, become the sorts of images that are iconic, you know, symbols of the United States.

[Scott Bertram]

This might be difficult to explain. We'll give it a shot. When you look at a building or look at a monument, what. What aesthetically sets, say, the Lincoln Memorial apart from something like the J. Edgar Hoover FBI building? And if people have seen it, they know why I'm asking the question, but what. What does it do to us? What. What's the difference?

[Justin Shubo]

Well, first off, let me say that it's not exactly ideal to be talking about architecture on the radio. It's all about the.

[Scott Bertram]

Yes.

[Justin Shubo]

What the buildings look like. But I think people do have an image of the Lincoln Memorial in their mind. It is a classical building with columns and steps. It is based on the design of an ancient Greek temple. You ascend. You know, it's. And it's made of marble and expensive materials. You ascend the steps, go through the colonnade, and then see this unbelievable statue of Lincoln in the middle. And I think, you know, there's a reason why it's one of the great symbols of the United States. It's a classical design. Fitting in with what the founding fathers sought for Washington D.C. which is that it ought to be a classical city. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, both of them talented amateur architects, and in fact, Jefferson was an actual genius. They consciously decided that the core buildings of Washington would be classical in design. They wish to hearken back to democratic precedents in ancient Rome and Greece. And we ended up with buildings like the White House and the Capitol. You know, these are classical buildings. And the founders inaugurated a tradition that lasted for about 150 years. And that tradition continued, as I was, I mean, just implying into the 20th century with buildings like the US Supreme Court, which is built, which, which was completed in the 1930s, the quote unquote, modern era. But after World War II, the federal government went almost completely modernist in design. They complete these buildings completely rejected tradition in the past, discarded with all ornament, no more columns, no more pediments, and in my view, essentially discarded beauty altogether. The emblematic worst of these post war buildings is the J. Edgar Hoover building, headquarters of the FBI. That is a, what's called a brutalist style of architecture. It is made up of raw expanses of exposed concrete, deep set windows with relentless grid of windows. And there is this looming mass over your head at one part of the building. And to me, the building has a sinister air. I like to say that it's the ministry of fear. These brutalist buildings which were prevalent mid century, especially in Washington, for federal buildings, they embody faceless bureaucracy. This is not the image of America that I think ordinary people wish to see. And it was a wrong turn in federal architecture. And what I would like to see, and we can talk about in a second, what I think President Trump would like to see, is a return to the classical tradition.

[Scott Bertram]

Justin, I'll ask about the Trump administration here in a minute, but I wanted to know, is there a financial aspect to this? Does it cost more to embrace the classical design and architecture in architecture?

[Justin Shubo]

I did an analysis of federal courthouses authorized in the same year, and I found that the cost per square foot of classical and modernist buildings was almost exactly the same. So it's just not true that classical buildings are necessarily more expensive than modernist ones.

[Scott Bertram]

When we get to the Trump administration and let's talk about the first term and then slide into the second term, the first Trump administration term, what was done on the issues of art and architecture, and what was he able to accomplish during his four years in office?

[Justin Shubo]

Well, in 2020, at the very end of his term, Trump issued an executive order on federal architecture. It was an incredible revolutionary order that reoriented Federal architecture, which had been almost entirely modernist. It reoriented architecture in a classical and traditional direction, stating that there should be special regard for classical and traditional styles when Federal buildings were being designed. It stated that Federal buildings ought to be beautiful. They should ennoble the United States, inspire the American people. And it also said that there needs to be input from the general public when design decisions are being made. The order was at its strictest regarding Washington, D.C. requiring that all new federal buildings there be classical. Unfortunately, the order was issued at the end of his term. Everything got slowed down due to Covid, and unsurprisingly, almost immediately after taking office, President Biden revoked the order without providing any reason for doing so. But the architectural establishment, which is almost entirely modernist, had been heavily lobbying him. Plus, there was the weight of elite opinion. As a case in point, the New York Times editorial board published an editorial titled what's so great about fake Roman columns? I'm sorry, fake Roman temples. It was an attack on contemporary classical architecture. The implication of what the Times wrote, of course, is that the US Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Jefferson Memorial, these are all equally fake Roman temples, right? These are not 2000 year old buildings. And so there was all this pressure and Biden unfortunately undid the order.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with Justin Shubo. He is the president of the National Civic Art Society. More about [e-mail], his website is shubo.com, s h u b o w.com I wanted to ask about your involvement in the creation of The World War I memorial, the new memorial in Washington, D.C. saban Howard, the sculptor, was recently a guest on one of our other podcasts here, the Larry Arne Show. He had a great conversation with Dr. Arne, president of Hillsdale College, about the.

[Justin Shubo]

World War I memorial.

[Scott Bertram]

Our listeners can check that out. What was your involvement in the creation of that memorial?

[Justin Shubo]

Well, I was friends with the man most responsible for designing the memorial and building it, a man named Edwin Fountain. He was vice chairman of the commission behind it. And from the very beginning, you know, I spoke with Edwin about mistakes of recent national memorials like the Eisenhower Memorial, which went very badly, and explained to Edwin what we needed to have was an open design competition, open to not just professional architects, but artists, sculptors, you name it. And importantly, the competition brief needed to say that the design shall evoke heroism and valor. And the reason it was important to put those words in there is because the general trend in our national memorials ever since the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is that we Build nothing but victim memorials. It's not possible for an artist to design something that is heroic or shows that heroism actually exists. And I think the ultimate example of this is the United Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania, where that airplane went down on September 11th. You know, as you surely. No, the passengers on that flight stormed the cockpit and stopped the terrorists from flying the airplane into a core building of government in Washington. What those passengers did, ordinary citizens, is up there with Paul Revere's ride in American history. Yet the memorial in Pennsylvania contains nothing commemorating the heroism of the passengers on that flight. So The World War I, the people behind it, wished to take a different direction. They did hold a blind, open design competition. And, I mean, I'll be honest, I encouraged Saban Howard, the winning sculptor, who is a good friend of mine, to enter the competition. And Sabin is an incredibly talented classical sculptor, and I think his final work speaks for itself. It's a beautiful, inspiring design, cinematic in its scope and telling all sorts of tempos. Emotional. There's a lot of emotional range. It shows, yes, the suffering and trauma of the war, but it also does show the heroism of the soldiers heading into the crucible of battle. And perhaps most shocking at all, for a contemporary national memorial, it's actually patriotic. At the end of the memorial, there is a victory parade with the soldiers marching arm in arm holding the American flag with America on, on the ascendant, on the world stage. And I would like to think that this memorial shows that the classical tradition is alive and well and opens up a new direction for our commemorative works.

[Scott Bertram]

With Donald Trump taking office once again, January 20, 2025, a new memorandum promoting beautiful federal civic architecture. Is this similar to what happened in the first term? And what should we expect over the next four years?

[Justin Shubo]

So what that did that day, one memorandum. President Trump planted the flag making clear that federal architecture is going to be a priority in this administration. It didn't impose anything regarding design, but rather ask the General Services Administration, the agency that oversees federal buildings, to get back to him in 60 days with recommendations about how things can be changed to protect and encourage classical, historic and regional styles of architecture. I think basically what it was saying is, please get back to us with recommendations, and in the next couple of months, we're going to see a new executive order. I believe that the new executive order will be a perfected, improved version of the one from 2021 that takes into account current realities on the ground, and I think it's going to make a huge splash. The order that Trump issued in his first term was extremely popular with people and commentators on the right, and really, I think it was also very popular with ordinary Americans of all political stripes. My organization did a survey by the Harris Poll to determine Americans preferences in federal architecture, and we found that 72% of the people surveyed preferred classical and traditional design. And there were widespread majorities across all demographic groups, gender, race, socioeconomic, and political party affiliation, with 73% of Republicans favoring tradition and 70% of Democrats. So, you know, call me naive, but I think this genuinely shouldn't be a partisan issue. But President Trump has shown real statesmanship in taking the lead on this, and I think incredible things are in the works.

[Scott Bertram]

Justin Scubo with US President of the National Civic Art Society at civicart.org Justin, what is the mission of the National Endowment for the Arts, and does it have a role to play in this Trump administration?

[Justin Shubo]

Sure. The National Endowment for the Arts is the main funder of the arts and arts education in the country. Its annual budget is around 200 million. I think the National Endowment for the Arts needs to play a key role in the administration because a huge goal of this administration is to make America beautiful again. It's about public architecture, public art, and I think all of the arts in general. You know, were I to run the National Endowment for the Arts, which would be a true honor, my vision would come from Dana Joya, who ran the NEA under George W. Bush. He said, a great nation deserves great art. And I couldn't agree more. But if you go to a contemporary art museum today, you know, you're more likely to see a banana duct taped to the wall than a piece of art that is beautiful, profound, or moving. And I think that the National Endowment for the Arts could play an essential role in. In changing the direction of what we are building or designing.

[Scott Bertram]

I'm curious if you consider yourself a bigger champion of the classical style or a bigger critic of the modern style.

[Justin Shubo]

I don't think it's either or. I mean, modernism dispensed with traditional forms of architecture, and there are various traditional kinds of architecture that are not, strictly speaking, classical. I mean, it depends how you're using the term classical. But I both oppose modernist architecture and vehemently encourage classical architecture for our public buildings. I mean, I believe that that tradition is unsurpassed in its beauty, its harmony, its. Its ability to make us feel at home in the world. I mean, just look at where people want to live and visit on vacation. It's so often in places with beautiful traditional architecture, there is this grand tradition that I think speaks to our human nature. And I would love to see, love to see that tradition furthered in the future.

[Scott Bertram]

Justin Shubo is president of the National Civic art [e-mail] you can also find him on his website, shubo.com s h u b o w.com Justin, thank you so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[Justin Shubo]

Thanks for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Dr. Dr. Miles Smith from Hillsdale's History Department and Justin Shubo, National Civic Art Society. Remember, you can hear new episodes every week on this station. You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews or listen anytime to the podcast. Find it at Podcast Hillsdale, Edu or wherever you get your audio. Until next week, I'm Scott Bertram, and this has been the radio for Free Hillsdale Hour.