I’ve never interviewed Bill Barr, and I almost certainly never will. If I did, however, it would run something like this:
(I meet with Barr at his office at the DOJ)
C: I have noted lots of Catholic memorabilia on your wall. I expected that, and it leads me to my first series of questions.
B: Fine. I’m always happy to talk about my faith.
C: You’re obviously a fan of Thomas More. In the Cromwell trilogy, Hilary Mantel portrays More as a fanatical heretic burner. What’s your reaction to that?
B: More was a man of his time. Like most people, he believed that the souls of his countrymen were in danger if he didn’t stamp out heresy. He did what he thought he had to do.
C: But he is viewed as a martyr by Catholics for his opposition to the government’s religious policy. The government had good reason to view him as a threat. Can’t you argue there is no difference between the two?
B: More stood for the continuity of Christendom. He had history and right on his side. That was the difference.
C: So it’s OK to burn heretics as long as you’ think have history on your side?
B: That was a long time ago. The world has changed. We don’t do that anymore.
C: Have you ever read a description of what a heretic burning was like?
B: Yes.
C: And you still think it was OK?
B: The painful death of one person here or there is not the big picture. The big picture is using the power of the state to maintain a godly, virtuous society. Heretics were viewed as spiritual poison to the whole. There was reason, at the time, to believe that. To some extent, there still is.
C: You have a position that is roughly analogous to More’s as Chancellor. In a perfect world, would you burn heretics?
B: In a perfect world, there would be no heretics.
C: Fair enough. Let me change topics slightly. Have you read the Vermeule article in The Atlantic about “common good constitutionalism?”
B: Yes.
C: What’s your reaction?
B: I’m sympathetic, obviously, but it’s a bridge too far. Straying from originalism is too dangerous. It would open up arguments for the left that we haven’t even thought of yet.
C: So you’re an originalist? You admire Scalia, I suppose?
B: Of course!
C: Prominent constitutional historians view Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case as an absolute masterpiece of legal and historical bullshit. How do you respond to that?
B: Lots of people have lots of opinions about everything. Scalia’s was the one that mattered. The winners write the history.
C: The prevailing opinion of you on the left is that you have a corrupt deal with Trump whereby you operate as his personal attorney and clean up his messes in exchange for the right to pursue your own ideological agenda. How do you respond to that?
B: I don’t deny that I have an agenda. Everyone in this business does. I also don’t deny that I owe a degree to loyalty to Trump as long as I work in his government. I do deny that I serve as Trump’s personal attorney. Everything I do is, at least in my view, consistent with the public interest.
C: Don’t you worry, like Ross Douthat, that your concept of conservatism will be damaged by its association with Trump, given his innumerable personal flaws?
B: I don’t judge Donald Trump’s character. That’s for God to decide. What I know is that we have a similar interest in supporting traditional ideas and morality in this country. As long as we’re on the same team there, I have no problem serving him. As to the future of conservatism, I live in the present. The future can take care of itself.
C: You are a passionate proponent of executive power. What actions would you take to clamp down on individual constitutional rights in the event of an unpopular foreign war? Would you use the emergency and your ideas about the unitary executive to muzzle the media?
B: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t deal in hypotheticals.
C: Thank you for your time.