We chat about my mentor, philosopher Michael Oakeshott, and his many intimations about the world.

Elizabeth Corey is an academic and writer. She’s an associate professor of political science in the Honors Program at Baylor University and the author of the 2006 book, Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics. She also writes for First Things and serves on the board of the Institute on Religion and Public Life. After many of you asked me to do a podcast on my intellectual mentor, we delve into the thinking and life of Michael Oakeshott — the philosopher I wrote my dissertation on.

You can listen right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — on the genius who shirked fame, and my sole meeting with Oakeshott — pop over to our YouTube page.

Other topics: Elizabeth born and raised in Baton Rouge; growing up to be a musician with Bill Evans as her idol; her father was an econ professor at LSU and part of the conservative intellectual movement; Baylor is a Christian school with thought diversity; Eric Voegelin; Hannah Arendt; Friedrich Hayek; how Elizabeth first stumbled upon Oakeshott; his critical view of careerism; living in the now; a champion of liberal education; opposing the Straussians and their view of virtue; individualism above all; how he would be horrified by the identity politics of today; calling Augustine “the most remarkable man who ever lived”; Montaigne not far behind; the virtue of changing one’s mind; how Oakeshott was very socially adept; conversation as a tennis match that no one wins; traveling without a destination; his bohemian nature; his sluttiness; Helen of Troy; early Christians; the Tower of Babel; civil association vs enterprise association; why Oakeshott was a Jesus Christian, not a Paul Christian; hating the Reformation and its iconoclasm; the difference between theology and religion; the joy of gambling being in the wager not the winning; the eternal undergraduate as a lost soul; politics as an uncertain sea that needs constant tacking; the mystery of craftsmanship; present laughter over utopian bliss; how following the news is a “nervous disorder”; why salvation is boring; how Oakeshott affected the lives of Elizabeth and myself; and the texts she recommends as an intro to his thought.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Tim Shipman on the UK elections, Erick Erickson on the left’s spiritual crisis, Lionel Shriver on her new novel, Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal cruelty, Van Jones, and Stephen Fry! Send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Here’s a listener on last week’s episode:

I enjoyed your conversation with Nellie Bowles. Newsroom dynamics are one of the topics you repeatedly address about which I’m wholly ignorant, so thanks for continuing to educate me.

But I write to raise a quibble about the conversation. The topic of “disinformation”, what to do about it, and whether it has become a covert tool for censorship is important. One issue you repeatedly discuss (this time with Nellie) is the “lab-leak hypothesis” for Covid-19. I don’t think anything incorrect was said, but there’s something wrong with the tone in the discussion — more so in previous Dishcasts, especially the one with Nicholas Wade.

I likely know a lot more about the topic than either you or Ms. Bowles, and I probably know more about the underlying science than does Mr. Wade. The reality is that NOBODY — with the theoretically possible exception of a handful of Chinese — knows where the virus originated. That the possibility of a lab leak was treated by US officials and mainstream media as a dangerous lie is lamentable at best, but that does NOT mean that the virus originated from a lab. I’d say a strong preponderance of well-informed opinion is against that hypothesis. It’s not impossible, but I’d be very surprised if it turns out to be correct.

Our point was simply that the question should not have been preemptively closed or deemed dangerous to ask. Another reader has questions for me:

Listening to you and Nellie proudly recall the movement to convince Americans to allow gay marriage, I wondered about your personal opinion regarding Obergefell. Are you disappointed that the Court took the issue away from the people? The decision declares that there never was a reason for you to convince others — gay marriage was enshrined in 1865 when the 14th Amendment was ratified — so weren’t you just wasting all that energy? Now that gay marriage has been forced on the remaining states, does it feel like you have been robbed of a vindication that you were working toward?

On a totally separate note, your unease with Biden regarding trans issues made me remember that I once heard Konstantin Kisin say that he would never vote for a man who endorses child mutilation; he would vote for that man’s opponent even if he had to plug his nose to do so. Not a crazy position, in my opinion.

I was always leery of exactly this kind of judicial intervention, and it was the one area of acute disagreement I had with Evan Wolfson, the real hero of the marriage movement. I wanted to win the battle state by state, legislature by legislature. But it’s in the nature of American politics that marriage is a civil right rooted in the Constitution, if not the Declaration of Independence. So its legal and constitutional aspects were always there, and had to be resolved at some point. Social change in America often includes court rulings, and given that we had already moved public opinion dramatically, Obergefell did not seem to me to be that big a stretch. Would I have preferred to have had more legislative and state court gains before SCOTUS weighed in? Yes. But in retrospect, it does not seem the most egregious case of judicial activism, especially because some kind of federal settlement had to be achieved once individual states had begun to issue marriage licenses.

From another fan of the episode:

I adore Nellie, and I like the Free Press. I fear, however, that she and Bari will — like so many disaffected liberals — fall into the trap of conservative audience capture. I’ve seen it too often of late.

It goes like this. Frustrated with the orthodoxies and insanity of progressive politics, a liberal quits (or gets fired from) a mainstream publication and starts an independent newsletter or podcast that reports on the excesses of the left. Instead of persuading former allies, the newsletter or podcast cultivates a populist right-wing audience that only wants to hear bad things about people they already hate (establishment liberals) without being challenged on their own biases and delusions about the 2020 election, Trump, or vaccines. Eager to please the new audience, the disaffected liberal focuses more and more on criticizing liberals and, over time, sounds increasingly MAGA or MAGA-adjacent.

The Free Press isn’t there. Eli Lake, for example, recently wrote an excellent piece attacking Tucker Carlson. But the Free Press does publish far more articles attacking the left than it does articles attacking the right. Scanning recent articles, I would say the ratio is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1, and I couldn’t find one article that even mildly criticized Trump. And based on the comments, I think its audience skews right and even MAGA.

You (along with Bill Maher and Sam Harris) are among the only few who remain immune to audience capture and consistently attack both sides. I do hope the Free Press follows your example.

In a highly polarized political culture, what I used call the “neocon slide” is very common. You start with dissenting with your own “side” on one issue, then endorse the other “side”, then end up with full-on partisan switching. Going thus far and no farther is difficult psychologically. I’ve done my best to resist these things — and being a “parish of one” helps. October 7th obviously galvanized my friends at FP, but I hope it won’t obliterate intellectual diversity in its pages.

Another listener responds to both Nellie and our recent episode with George Will:

Will’s upbringing is striking. His life began as a beneficiary of postwar industrial policy, especially the GI Bill and other subsidies that flooded into public institutions like the University of Illinois, funded by high taxes that also built infrastructure like the Interstate Highway System (his revered Eisenhower’s project), unions that supported middle-class prosperity, and everything else. Granted, there were economic and social downsides to that era, but it’s the closest that any modern, multiethnic society has come to reasonable distributions of wealth and opportunity.

But George Will and Milton Friedman’s side won! Since 1980, we’ve largely deregulated the economy, destroyed the unions, let the infrastructure crumble, spiked inequality, and let the market decide — thus destroying the postwar world that raised up Will. Yeehaw!

So what is there for Will to complain about? Yes, the culture also became more libertarian, but if you want Las Vegas economics, you get Las Vegas culture along with it.

I really enjoyed hearing Nellie Bowles as well. The one element I don’t hear in your or her critiques of “woke elites” is the fact that many of these people are hypocrites. You think they refrain from calling the cops if they need help? (Which is seldom if ever, when you’re well off.) Do they send their kids to public schools with poor or even middle-class students?

Of course they love solutions to racism or inequality that involve changing and policing language, because it makes them feel righteous even as they live lives largely untouched by either. NIMBY liberals carefully use the word “unhoused” — but do you think they’ll support affordable housing in their neighborhoods? They love reading land acknowledgments, but do you think they’re offering their own property to Indigenous people??

Another dissent over the George pod:

I listened to the episode while on the road and enjoyed it thoroughly. I have been a fan of George Will for 35 years. In college, his biweekly column at Newsweek was a significant influence on my perspectives and ways of thinking about politics and policy. And his writing affected my outlook not just on scholarly topics; his book Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball deepened my appreciation for the American pastime. I find him to be intelligent, independent in thought, and articulate beyond compare.

However, I think he grossly missed the mark with his dismissal of climate change and its impact. The very definition of conservatism is a desire to preserve that which we hold dear, and which has brought us prosperity and joy — whether it be laws, traditions, or ways of life. Thus, I cannot understand the hostility that members of the right seem to have towards trying to avoid the rapid climatic change that we are currently experiencing. What could be more conservative than wishing to preserve the world as we have known it for millennia?

He sadly tows the far-right party line and is shockingly ignorant on the topic, sounding more like Tucker Carlson than the well-read scholar he is. Will’s glib comparison of sea level rise in Miami to that of Amsterdam is a poorly thought-out analogy. What the citizens of one European city did over centuries to reclaim land from the sea is completely irrelevant to how humanity is going to deal with catastrophic and sudden sea level rise that affects the 10 percent of the world’s population that lives in coastal areas less than 10 meters above sea level.

And his comment that we would be better off spending money on cancer research reveals his buffet approach to science. He trusts the scientists that are delivering cures for disease, but not those modeling the consequences of a warming planet?

I agree with him that we will adjust to climate change. We will not be extinguished. But it is not going to be a world that I want to live in, or pass to my posterity. Like him, I believe in the ingenuity of the human race and am quite convinced that we can fix the emergency we face. But we need sensible policy to catalyze this innovation, and markets alone will not solve this without incentives provided by governments. A simple, universal, and appropriately high carbon tax would provide the economic incentive to solve the problem almost overnight.

I couldn’t agree more. I should have pushed George on this some more, I guess. I think climate change should be a central issue for conservatives, for the reasons my reader suggests. For a deep dive into the debate over a carbon tax, check out the Dish blog archive. Here’s George on the crisis in the Ukraine:

One more on the George pod:

Really enjoyed your discussion with George Will. I wanted to mention one thing:  he is brilliant, and probably correct on nearly everything he says. But I just love and admire how you can speak with conviction without arrogance or smugness. You have this lovely way of stating your point but not bludgeoning your listeners with it. I would probably change my mind more readily in the face of an argument you make with your measured and generous approach.

But another listener is over it:

I recently suspended my long-standing subscription to the Dish. I was invited in my cancellation confirmation to explain why — to “vent” — and while I assumed this to be merely a polite gesture, I felt perhaps it might be sincere.

You and I are exactly the same age, and I was first introduced to your perspective when we were both very young and conservative. We are no longer young, and I am sad to say you are less conservative — perhaps not at all, at this point. Evolving is of course admirable and laudable. I’ve always admired your desire to face head-on many challenging and nuanced issues, even when I was in disagreement. I have always perceived you as a straight shooter.

However, of late, your persistent railing against President Trump and your disdain for what you deem “Christianism” — of which I guess I belong to — has grown intolerable. You are, of course, at liberty to express yourself as you wish, but I needn’t pay to listen or read. Suspending my subscription, while insignificant to you, is a blow to me. I have long admired your positions even while in opposition, and I will miss your voice. Perhaps once we are past November — whether or not Mr. Trump is re-instated (which I hope for) — I will be able to re-subscribe. Until that time, I wish the Dish team well.

Thanks, I guess. I was more emphatic about Christianism a decade or so ago, so it’s odd that you should pick now to leave over it. And Trump? Sorry but not sorry. I’ve aired many, many discussions of the questions his candidacy and presidency has raised, and have always respected those aspects of populism that merit support. But support for Trump is not and cannot be a conservative sine qua non. Hope to see you back after November.

Another dissent:

I’ve been reading you since you blogged with The Atlantic. I love your interview style. I love that you ask your guests about their childhood. I love that you engage with ideas. This is why I subscribe.

But a few months ago on the Dishcast you were talking to Daniel Finkelstein, and he mentioned that one of his ancestors made great achievements and that the male ancestor could only have done so because his wife literally took care of every aspect of his life, barring his writing. The two of you chuckled about this and moved on.

I found this so profoundly dismaying.

With a chuckle and a laugh, you and he dismissed the work of so many women. How many women have subsumed themselves, as expected by their culture, to their husband’s work? How many women will never be acknowledged for their intelligence and contribution, because women are erased?

I was unexpectedly quite hurt by your chuckle and laugh. I have been your advocate ever since you published the stories of women who have late-term abortions, after the murder of Dr. Tiller. I am a big fan, but please, can you start acknowledging the contributions of women, even when it might have been invisible? There is no Nabokov without his wife, who did everything for him so he could write.

I don’t recall the giggle, and I apologize if it was insensitive. I don’t think I fail to recognize the extraordinary contributions of women to civilization. But maybe I should try to do better. This next listener looks to another recent episode:

I’ve read your work over many years, with delight, and recently became a  subscriber to your podcast. I enjoyed your discussion with Bill Maher, who is another beacon of common sense in this confused age.

Just a quick comment on that episode: as a practicing Catholic, I find it very difficult to have deep conversations with others (even close friends) who are not religious, or at least not conventionally religious. It never goes well. And these are, for the most part, very intelligent individuals. So I felt for you when the topic of faith was brought up. Bill is not going to have any of it. Same as Hitch, whom I also admire.

I’ve come to the conclusion, basically, that some people will never be open to Christian belief as truth, or even possible truth. And it’s almost not worth the time to attempt to have a civil discussion. They can’t make the distinction between the city of God and the city of man. The door has not been opened for them. Perhaps, if it ever occurs, it will be through God’s grace or some catharsis in their lives, which will give them no choice but to believe.

As a huge Oakeshott aficionado, since college, I absolutely love his poetic digression on religion, or the religious sentiment, in On Human Conduct. His writing is always full of wisdom, even when it’s a bit plodding at times (societas vs universitas, civil association, etc). But I re-read annually this short, Pascal-like, perfectly phrased section.

Another on the Maher pod:

As a fellow ex-pat, you and I have lots in common: I grew up in a poor, working-class, rural environment in England. I was a young Marxist and socialist before I grew out of it and began to discover — both inside and outside of the UK — the harsh realities and worst excesses of that ideology and its Marxist-Leninist roots. That journey is a much longer story — which also includes my recent conversion to Catholicism — but that’s all for another day.

Every Dish merits much deeper conversation, and the Bill Maher episode was no exception. I just wanted to take issue with one thing he said: that conservatives are natural followers, and that it’s in their DNA. I find that a bit preposterous.

There are of course always blind followers in any group, but having spent time in both liberal and conservative circles, I have personally found the center-right to be much more diverse in terms of its thinking and inclusiveness than the left, and much more tolerant. I am staunchly independent and politically homeless. When I moved to LA, I was amazed and shocked at the intolerance and ignorance of the Hollywood left and what I believe to be an extreme over-reaction from them to Trump (a person I did not vote for). It had me questioning the sanity of many people on the left, including those I consider(ed) friends.

To me, the real “followers” — and the most bigoted today — are those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge in any way that, despite Trump’s personality, there were some benefits to the country under the his presidency. At the same time, they remain willingly blind to the madness in the current administration — led by a man whose mental capacities are obviously in serious decline, and whose governance includes pandering to some extreme leftist ideology, which has led to appointments like the cross-dressing luggage stealer, and moves like the gutting of Title IX.

Americans are told not to believe their lying eyes, while the country has watched an out-of-control DEI take over corporations, institutions and campuses. Witness the debacle of pro-Hamas demonstrations at universities and the indoctrination of privileged students by radical professors. It’s no wonder that even Democrats — especially Jews who feel betrayed by their silent or even pro-Hamas liberal friends — are willing to hold their nose to vote for Trump. These are not wild-eyed right-wingers, but normal, common-sense people who have had enough of the indulging of radical ideologies that divide the country and create so much chaos.

Anyway, it’s obvious that that one remark by Bill — a person I admire and who I have met several times (a close friend produced PI and Real Time for many years), set me off! I just felt that in contrast to much of his recent commentary, this statement was way off the mark.

Another labels his email, “Trump is going to win big and I don’t care”:

Trump will win unless Biden steps down and the Democrats get their heads out of their butts and start talking, fighting, and working for the working class that is working their butts off. Convict Trump away; tease Trump on late-night shows; have panel after panel on CNN go through his lies and whatever else you want; but the hard truth is Trump is going to win and win big in November — unless the approach changes on the left.

Biden will lose, and as Bill Maher expressed, he will become “Ruth Bader Biden” and ruin his legacy:

The more the liberals are disgusted by people’s support of Trump, the more the people of the working class will support Trump. The secret is found in my people.  The backbone of this country, and the true silent majority, are the working class people of faith, of all races … and the liberal Democrats have decided they are not worth their time.

Joe Biden is done and everyone knows it, and Trump is an anti-Christ who is inadvertently helping destroy my Christian faith by misleading the evangelical church right off the cliff. Despite these truths, I must admit a desire to see Trump win in November, and to watch these pretentious, self-righteous, liberal news outlets that are so “disgusted” cry on national TV. Many of the working class would enjoy that.

Understand: it’s hard to be at the bottom of the economic ladder, and even more difficult to be ignored by political leaders and media commentators, so small victories can be nice. The only way to beat Trump is to dump Biden, pick almost anyone, and talk all day, every day, about the plight of the working-class people of faith.

Whoever runs against Trump must admit that the education system favors the rich; the justice system favors the rich; our economic system favors the rich; the media favors the rich; and politicians of both parties favor the rich. Most Americans are hard-working and broke, holding on to blue-collar American values, while watching their lives and their children’s lives fall apart.

One more thing. Evangelical leaders Ralph Reed and Robert Jeffress have been in the news lately, and I want to say that I do not like, respect, or value these men —or any of their evangelical brethren — in any way. These evangelical leaders are manipulators, modern-day Pharisees, and self-serving sons of the devil. The enemy of the Christian faith is not found outside of the church but within its walls and leadership, and no one exemplifies the misleading of the Christian faith better than Reed and Jeffress. They use the word of God to condemn the people Christ came to save. They reject foreigners, love guns, embrace the wealthy, and support the new leader of the evangelical church: the felon-in-chief Donald Trump. Reed and his flock are an enemy of American democracy and, more importantly, an enemy to the ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Again, we are very much on the same page. I still can’t vote for a lunatic.

On yet another episode of the Dishcast:

My wife is away for a couple of weeks, so I’m indulging my version of cocaine and hookers: podcasts and long historical novels. I listened this morning to your talk with Noah Smith. You have such different styles and affects, which I found fascinating. I’ve only started reading his substack over the past few months, and I find him quite a valuable voice.

One moment in your talk with Noah sticks with me: the discussion of “information tournaments.” He casts this as a potential Achilles Heel for Western democracies, which you don’t particularly push back on. Here’s a question: do you, Andrew, play as constructive a role in our national discussion as you should be playing? Are you mindful enough about the balance between your personal obsessions and your goals as a public intellectual?

I love that you give yourself liberty to write a whole column on South Park and Pet Shop Boys. I read that column as avidly as I read any of the rest — even though I hate South Park and have never listened to PSB — because I have a very satisfying parasocial relationship with you, and you being happy makes me happy. The occasional personal column makes for nice pacing. But as much as I enjoy a more personal column once in a while, I notice that you don’t devote what seems like every third or fourth column to such things.

On the other hand, it feels like you respond frequently and excessively to culture-war chum. Transgender issues, for instance, have enormous salience for some people and their families and loved ones. And of course they contain deep and important questions to discuss about gender and self-identity. You’ve lived in some key ways a different life than I have, and one of the reasons I adore you is that you let yourself obsess on things that obsess you. But I’d guess that, for most Americans, this is just not that big a deal. I know a couple of transgender people, I’m very happy that they exist in a time when they can live their best lives, I probably disagree with them about sports and child transitioning, but I don’t spend a lot of time focusing on it.

The reason that this culture-war chum steals so much attention from other (and, I would argue, more central) issues is that it’s guaranteed to fire up people’s emotions. You do reliably inject substance, even when you get emotional — but the problem, I suppose, is that your essays often make ME emotional, and then that’s what I focus on.

Other examples include Israel/Gaza, student protesters, some commencement speech that Biden gives, and Trump’s recent felony conviction. It’s not that these are unimportant. Yes, as a godless cosmopolitan Yglesian, I should be aware, for instance, that immigration has a different emotional resonance for many Americans than it does for me. It’s not that I don’t personally have strong opinions on each, and it’s not even that they can’t provide windows into central questions. It’s that I think sometimes you get caught up too much in the heat of the moment, let your emotions manipulate you (or be manipulated), and then wind up playing into the unhealthy forces that you and Noah Smith discussed.

Have you listened to The Rest Is History with Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook?I’ve been working my way through it, and today I listened to the “Culture Wars” episode from 2021. Holland defines culture wars as “arguments about theology that do not recognize themselves as being about theology,” which annoyed me at first, but it felt useful by the end. He distinguishes this from explicitly religious fights, which are much more the historical norm. (An Instance of the Fingerpost, which I just finished, is a glorious book!) Highlights include their discussion of a battle over a statue in the Roman senate in the 4th century that’s reminiscent of recent battles here and in the UK, and Holland’s discussion of the role of universities in generational religious/culture wars ever since the 12th century.

One reason I liked their discussion is the distinction Holland makes between explicit and unconscious theology. An Instance of the Fingerpost is powered by explicit theology, particularly in the magnificent (and, to me, quite moving) fourth section.

You, quite movingly, also write about faith and God. (And I remember being moved by these parts of your conversations with Cornell West and Caitlin Flanagan.) For instance, many years ago, during a troubled time in my life, you wrote about Pope Francis as the “Untier of Knots.” I wrote you a thank-you email, and you sent me a nice response. That piece still resonates with me. In addition to the small questions of salvation/devotion/ultimate meaning of life and death, your faith seems to play a large role in your emotional life. (Your faith plays a role in MY emotional life!) It’s also a substantive issue, healthy for the body politic, and not as amenable to manipulation by social media as is culture war churn.

So, what do you think of channeling your impulses to react to the latest public outrage into a discussion of why we’re here, how we should care for our fellow humans (and other sentient creatures), what our obligations are to God and each other, etc? To be fair, you DO do this sometimes — but how about shifting the balance much more in this direction? I say this as a lifelong atheist Jew. Your writing about religion helps me reconnect with my deepest values — which, of course, as a Westerner are infused with Christianity.

That’s a lot to ponder. I definitely get my reader’s gist. It’s why I still have a contract for a book on deeper things — the truth of Christianity — which I hope to write sooner rather than later. I am constantly thinking about it. But I doubt a weekly newsletter and podcast would cast such a wide net with such a narrow and deep focus. So I pace these things out.

This next listener is looking ahead:

Long-time listener and subscriber here! I absolutely loved the episode you recorded with Sam Harris just before Election Day four years ago, and I was wondering if you will do another pre-election podcast. I hope so!

I haven’t asked Sam yet but it’s on the agenda. A quick dissent from this reader:

Your quote last week from Adam Grant about bodies of water being relaxing reminded me of something I read that is pretty important, especially for anyone who does research (like me). Here’s a quote from Jesse Singal on that Grant quote: “Anyone familiar with psychology’s recent replication travails, particularly when it comes to anything related to social priming (the idea that brief cues can significantly alter people’s judgements and/or behavior), should be skeptical of a study like this. Sure enough, there are all sorts of red flags, both in the study itself and in Grant’s summary of it.”

A perennial question about Pride Month comes from this reader:

As I am forced by our corporate overlords to tacitly accept and never publicly criticize this annual, month-long festival of madness I ask myself this question: How did the LGBTQ+ community in America go from a horrifically treated, unprotected subset of the population to fascists wielding rainbow flags? It’s complicated, to be sure, but equal parts absurd and disgusting as well. So much for folks like me (straight white male) having all the privilege and fragility, am I right?

The PRIDE-O-Verse seems to have established their new moral high-ground well below that of the Vatican and just a wee bit above the Trump legal team. I just wanted to check in to see how you, as a gay man, feel about this strange cultural evolution.

In a word: awful. I cringe. I don’t go. I see hubris and extremism in a movement that has become detached from its core previous goals and become a kind of cultural oppressor.

From a “longtime Dishhead and severe asthmatic”:

It’s been nearly a year since you wrote about James Nestor’s book Breath. Have you seen any improvement? I’m always interested in learning how fellow asthmatics are coping.

This year has been a bit better. New asthma meds and a battery of allergy-serums have kept my lungs less constrained.

And lastly, here’s a reader “regarding puppy training and house-breaking”:

Your dog Truman sounds like he’s smart and good company. He looks cute. (It always helps when you’re pretty.) I’m glad you have him.

As you undoubtably already know, a young dog’s bladder is yet not fully developed. When he pees in your house, it’s not his fault. When his puppy bladder needs to evacuate, he’s going to do it, no matter what. That’s frustrating, I know.

This is how I was able to train my puppy, who I adopted when she was two months old. It took me a while to figure it out. Using behaviorism as a tool, one needs to observe closely how many minutes he takes from urinating (or pooping) from one event to the next. That will give you an idea of how long he’s able to hold it. In the books I read, experts said for my puppy (at four-to-six months), it’s about two hours.

That may be true for most puppies, but it was not true for mine. I finally figured out that 60 minutes was about the time limit. So, I set a timer for 55 minutes, and when the bell went off, I quickly took her outside. When she reached the grass, I gave her the command, “Go potty.” I didn’t say anything else until she peed. Immediately afterward, I gave her a kibble, praised and petted her, took her back inside, and reset the alarm.

As she grew older, I gradually set the alarm for longer periods. Every now and then, she would “relapse” — and then we went back to previously shorter time periods and started slowly working back up to longer.

I had kennel-trained my dog at a young age. I can’t remember what book I read, which assessed how long a puppy could wait at night before going outside. For a period as a younger dog to stop her peeing on her bed, I got up in the middle of the night to take her out. I always took her before bedtime. I still do that today.

My dog is now seven years old. But any time it looks like she needs to pee, I take her out or let her out into my fenced back yard. I try hard to never wait. (I’m retired, so it’s easier for me.) But if you have anyone else living or working in your home, they can maybe help with this task, too.

Training a puppy was way more work than I thought it would be. I hadn’t had a dog for 40 years and I was in my early 70s when I got Alice. I honestly thought I would lose my mind during the first year. On the other hand, as a social worker I had taught parents how to use behavioral techniques with young children. Believe me, behaviorism works just as well, if not better, with dogs.

Good luck with Truman!

He’s learning quickly. Just a few accidents in the past month or so.

Thanks as always for the great dissents and other emails. Send yours to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Weekly Dish, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends