Last week Bret Stephens, a pundit for Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ), breathed the following prayer of relief: “With so much at stake in this election, it's no small blessing that Dr. Paul remains a man of the fringe.” Not a week later, however, more Nevadans voted for him than for a “frontrunner,” John McCain. In fact, Nevada is where Paul has broken through to double-digits, i.e., 14%. (CBS News’ Bill Whittaker reported last Friday, and repeated on Saturday, that Mitt Romney, who won Nevada, campaigned “alone.” That same news outfit’s grey eminence, Bob Schieffer, intoned on Saturday that Romney’s campaign was “uncontested.” Anyone who searched "Ron Paul Nevada" last week, however, would have found several local press reports on the contesting Schieffer said didn’t happen. CBS News’ thrice-told falsehood can be explained, as far as I can tell, in one of only two ways: ignorance of the news or an intention to suppress it. Neither possibility squares with pretensions to being a news organization.)

Two days after Stephen’s op-ed, LewRockwell.com published Independent Institute scholar Robert Higgs’ response to it, Libertarian Foreign Policy in the Hobbesian Crosshairs: Reply to Bret Stephens. It addressed most of the pundit’s historical and philosophical errors, but a couple of points not handled were the subject of an e-mail I sent to Stephens the day his column appeared:

You’re right, Mr. Stephens, “Mankind is not comprised solely of profit- and pleasure-seekers; the quest for prestige and dominance and an instinct for nihilism are also inscribed in human nature.” That’s precisely why no such flawed creatures ought to be put in charge of managing Leviathan.

Rolling back empire is not “disengagement from the world.” It’s just rolling back empire. The quip Senator McCain’s that you cited accurately reflects the heft of the bombardier’s “thinking,” as does the condescending grin he wears when Dr. Paul is outlining his Taft-Republican positions.

After thirty-years of reading on the subject, I have yet to find a libertarian who believes that “things go better when left alone.” Libertarians believe that what you must leave alone are things that don’t belong to you. The world is not comprised wholly of peaceful co-operators on free markets, of course, but a world of free markets is the optimal one for handling violent non-cooperators. By the latter I especially mean Leviathan’s convenient terrorist bogeymen du jour, whose ranks would be much diminished without the daily incentives that the empire provides around the globe (to the applause of papers like The Wall Street Journal).

As “non-fringe” candidates break open their piggy-banks to see what they have left to invest in Super-Duper Tuesday, it is no small blessing to libertarians, as it must be no small curse to you, that pro-empire editorialists still find it necessary to wield their pens against Dr. Paul and his “fringe” movement.

The major dead-tree media continue to hemorrhage. The Journal itself lost one percent of its readership last year, according to today’s Knoxville Voice (which is where I had to go to get facts about dead-tree disease, from which, the Voice itself admitted, it was not immune). Our prayer is that in a few years the WSJ will be a fringe newspaper on the order of, say, the People’s Weekly World. Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s campaign is enjoying its third biggest fund-raising day. (Its first two were for the record-books.)

On July 11, 2007, I wrote the following to an F. H. Bradley scholar:

Your note provides me with an opportunity to ask for help regarding a matter that's been puzzling me. The lives of two of my intellectual heroes, Lord Acton and Alfred North Whitehead, overlapped at Cambridge, so I'm wondering if it is even ascertainable whether the younger man, who was a Fellow in Mathematics there (1888-1910) when the historian was delivering his inaugural Regius Professorship lectures, attended those standing-room-only events. Whitehead was very much interested in history and theology in those years (1895-97), so it is possible that he was present. It's a purely factual matter that I'm sure someone like Roland Hill or Owen Chadwick could settle, but I do not feel comfortable bothering men so advanced in years just to satisfy my curiosity. (The Cambridge site was not very helpful.) The truth of the matter may very well be lost to history, but I'd like to take a few more steps before I come to that conclusion. Thanks for any thought you may give to my query.

His gracious response was that he could not help. On July 23, 2007 I wrote to a Whitehead scholar:

When I took notice recently of the fact that two of my heroes, Acton and Whitehead, were at Cambridge at the same time, I wondered whether if it was even ascertainable whether the younger man, a Fellow in Mathematics there (1888-1910) when the historian was delivering lectures inaugurating the Regius Professorship of Modern History, attended those standing-room-only events. After all, Whitehead was studying history and theology during the period overlapping those years (1895-97), so it was likely he did attend them.

Today the first volume of Lowe’s life of Whitehead, which I had once read and reserved last week through inter-library loan, arrived. On page 186 I read that Whitehead admired Acton, was keenly aware of his “troubles with Rome,” proposed a Cambridge memorial to him, and did indeed drop “in on some of his lectures after Acton was appointed” to that chair. “But I know of no discussions between them.”

OK, so my initial curiosity has been satisfied, and then some. But there’s more. Last week I learned that Acton had rooms in Nevile’s Court (once home to Newton and Francis Bacon). Today I learned (from a Googled excerpt of Roland Hill’s Lord Acton which, again, I read years ago without thinking about this matter) that his room was “staircase 2, A1, on the first floor.” (His library would later occupy the apartment next door).

Picking up Lowe again, I read that when “Whitehead married [in 1891], he changed the rooms given him by Trinity College, moving from a large, high-ceilinged room (C2) in Nevile’s Court to a modest one there” until 1902, the year Acton dies. So during the years of the lectures, at least, Acton and Whitehead are neighbors. (I hope someone at Cambridge can tell me the proximity of their rooms to each other.)

But there’s more. Lowe mentions that in the mid-‘nineties McTaggart formed Eranos, a philosophical discussion group, and that while Whitehead was a member, he did not think much of it. And today I read in James C. Holland’s Introduction to Owen Chadwick’s study of Lord Acton that “it was at Cambridge that he gave it [i.e., “his commitment to moral judgment in history”] definitive and final expression, in May, 1897, in the privacy of his Trinity rooms in Nevile's Court, where he [Acton] addressed a select society, the Eranus [sic], which never numbered more than twelve members.”

Now, this is not the crowd that the Regius lectures attracted: they were held in the large lecture rooms. This is an elite group whose members know each other. It seems highly likely that not only Whitehead was present, but he almost certainly conversed with Acton, whose path he must have crossed in the corridors of Nevile's Court many times. Did they converse?

What could settle the matter may very well be lost to history, but I would not like to draw that conclusion prematurely. It may involve asking men, advanced in years, like Roland Hill or Owen Chadwick, about published diaries that might hold the answer. Or maybe someone who works in an office at Trinity knows whether there are attendance records extant that confirm Acton and Whitehead's being in nearly unavoidable contact with each other.

Did these two giants converse? Well, that’s my question! Who might know how to go about answering it?

With equal graciousness, my correspondent passed my query along to a Whitehead studies center, but no one has contacted me or, apparently, him.

It seems highly probable that Acton and Whitehead did converse, but there is no direct evidence to that effect. I’m hoping that someone who finds this post can add the detail that for all practical purposes removes my iota of doubt.