Allen Mendenhall

Allen Mendenhall is Associate Dean and Grady Rosier Professor in the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University, where he directs the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy. The author or editor of numerous books, his latest is a novel, A Glooming Peace This Morning. He holds a B.A. in English from Furman University, an M.A. in English and a J.D. from West Virginia University, an LL.M. from Temple University, and a Ph.D. in English from Auburn University. He has held various positions in academia, private practice, and government and has published widely in peer-reviewed journals, law reviews, and popular media. His opinions and reviews have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Fox News, Fox Business, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, The Hill, The Los Angeles Review of Books, The American Conservative, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, Public Discourse, Law & Liberty, and The Daily Signal. He lives in Alabama with his wife and children.

---

What is your current position?

I wear several hats and enjoy affiliations with numerous organizations, but primarily, I’m the associate dean of the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University and executive director of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy.

What inspired you to choose this career path?

I’ve never been drawn to the traditional path or the predictable corporate climb, but I always felt a deep calling to immerse myself in the world of ideas and engage in the critical intellectual debates that shape society. I had an epiphany in a dorm room at Edinburgh University in 2003. I don’t remember the book I was reading, but I vividly recall the view of Calton Hill and a powerful realization: namely, that I wanted to dedicate my life to pursuing knowledge and truth, regardless of where that path might lead.

Since then, I’ve chased this goal with determination, even when the destination was unclear. I’ve held various legal roles, from private practice to government positions, working alongside figures like Roy Moore and Luther Strange. I’ve also found a home in academia, teaching in higher education since 2010 and encouraging students to engage with conservative thought.

I don’t limit myself to the traditional confines of academia. While most faculty prefer to stay behind the scenes, I actively participate in public discourse—filing amicus briefs, testifying before policymakers, and engaging in political debate. When people ask what I do, I say that I’m a professional conservative committed to advocating for ideas that I believe are crucial for the future of humanity. I wake up daily thinking about how to save our country, not about department meetings, student evaluations, or whatever mundane accreditation paperwork is due.

What are you currently working on?

Where to begin? I’m hosting an anti-ESG conference and working on an article about fiduciary duty and state pension plan investments. I’m also busy with regular media appearances, whether on television, radio, or in print, contributing something new almost every week. Recently, the Johnson Center collaborated with the 1792 Exchange on a study that found that nearly 80% of Americans believe large corporations have become too political over the past five years rather than not being political enough. Additionally, 62% of respondents claimed that CEOs should focus on running their businesses and avoid taking stands on politically charged issues. Meanwhile, we are in the thick of our Free Enterprise Scholars program, which educates undergraduates on traditional business ethics. The program also illustrates how trends like wokeness, ESG, and the stakeholder model of corporate governance erode conventional business ethics and pose a broader threat to the stability and freedom of society.

How did you hear about the Claremont Institute?

I’ve been familiar with the Claremont Institute for so long that I can’t remember when I first learned about it!

What is your fondest memory of the Claremont Institute?

The Lincoln Fellowship was indeed a remarkable experience. Those ten days flew by, but they left an indelible mark on all of us. Our cohort formed a genuine bond that continues today: We constantly communicate through group chats, sharing thoughts and keeping each other informed.

The program itself was a rich blend of intellectual stimulation and social connection. I found great value in the lectures, and activities like analyzing The Searchers or taking that boat ride in the harbor provided unique contexts for discussion. Perhaps most memorable were the evenings spent conversing over a glass of wine, where we could dive into substantive topics with fellow attendees with diverse experiences and talents.

What struck me was how people from various fields could unite with shared interests in conservative thought and policy. We didn’t always agree entirely, but the range of perspectives—again, within definite constraints—made our discussions all the more engaging and valuable.

The fellowship created an environment where lasting relationships could flourish alongside intellectual growth. Seeing how those connections have endured well beyond the program itself is gratifying.

There are all sorts of educational programs out there for current and rising conservative professionals. What do you think makes the Claremont Institute’s Fellowships unique?

The program stands out because it is far from a casual retreat; it demands a significant commitment with substantial reading and features rigorous lectures and in-depth discussions. Unlike other programs, it spans several days, allowing participants to step away from their daily routines and fully immerse themselves in a confidential and constructive environment. The sunny setting fosters serious, thought-provoking conversations about critical philosophical ideas and the country’s future.

Who would it be, why, and what would you discuss, if you could have a conversation with an American Founder, or any great thinker?

Thomas Jefferson, that enigmatic Founding Father, has long captivated my imagination. I see reflections of both his virtues and vices in myself, a recognition that compels me to seek a deeper understanding of the man and his ideas. I imagine an evening of profound discourse and exquisite taste if I could dine with him. Known for his refined palate and extensive wine cellar, Jefferson would undoubtedly select a vintage that perfectly complements both the meal and our conversation. His expertise in French cuisine, cultivated during his time as Minister to France, would ensure a menu as sophisticated as his dialogue.

Over this carefully curated repast, I would seek to unravel the complexities of his thought, particularly his conception of equality as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. This term, so central to American identity, carries nuances and implications that continue to shape our national discourse. I’d press him to elaborate on his intent in writing the Declaration and to explain how he reconciled his lofty ideals with the complex realities of his time. Our conversation would likely touch on the tension between his belief in natural rights, his practical politics, and his vision for American democracy.

What qualities do you believe will make outstanding statesmen/women in this century?

Our political landscape is a barren field, bereft of true leadership. We have the swaggering ignoramuses, puffed up with bravado but hollow in substance—men and women who couldn’t navigate a high school history text, let alone the intricacies of statecraft. Their boldness is the courage of the fool who rushes where angels fear to tread. On the other hand, we have the tepid intellectuals, their minds brimming with knowledge but their spines made of jelly. These milquetoast academicians can recite Plato and parse constitutional law, but they wilt at the first hint of confrontation. They’re more suited to drafting position papers than leading a country.

What we desperately need—what our republic cries out for—is a fusion of intellectual heft and courage. We need leaders who can quote Cicero while staring down our adversaries, who understand the weight of history but aren’t paralyzed by it. We need leaders who’ve drunk deeply from the well of Western thought, who grasp the philosophical underpinnings of our jurisprudence but also possess the grit to act decisively in defense of our principles. This rare combination of erudition and fortitude once made American leadership the envy of the world.

What do you believe is the greatest challenge facing the United States today?

The most significant policy challenges—how to deal with over $35 trillion in national debt or the soon-to-be-insolvent social security program—flow from existential cultural crises. We have Americans rejecting biological realities, particularly regarding sexuality, and entitled communities that have been conditioned to see the world as binarized between oppressor and oppressed—that enjoy lavish benefits and institutionalized advantages while decrying those very things. If the culture is foolish and degenerate, policy can do nothing to help it.

What do you believe has led to our established culture redefining itself in the 21^st Century?

A professor with a doctorate in English, I’ve been extensively trained in literary and cultural theory. This background has, I think, enabled me to identify connections between contemporary societal challenges and theoretical movements rooted in Derridean deconstruction and post-structuralism.

Jacques Derrida couldn’t have fully foreseen his eventual influence on areas like queer theory and other cultural studies. For instance, the concept of “non-binary” gender identity can be traced back to deconstructionist practices. Michel Foucault’s theories on power dynamics remain helpful, and interestingly, he recommended works by Mises and Hayek to his students later in his career. However, the poststructuralist approach, which views cultural conditions as products of systems and structures, has had far-reaching consequences.

To simplify complex ideas, this school of thought can lead to a diminished sense of individual agency and personal responsibility. We see this manifested in discussions of “systemic racism” or “structural racism” and similar concepts that imply a need to dismantle entire systems to correct past wrongs. Individuals wittingly or unwittingly influenced by these teachings might seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for criminal or harmful actions by claiming they’re merely products of institutional and systemic conditioning. This mindset challenges traditional notions of mens rea in assigning moral blame.

The implications of these French theories on our understanding of personal responsibility, societal structures, and justice are profound and warrant further exploration. Today, Emmanuel Macron decries the importation of American “wokeness” into French universities. American academia has seemingly transformed French theory into radicalized politics that even the French left cannot tolerate. 

Do you believe we are slowly becoming a country of political will or still a nation of law and order at the government level?

The ideological clash in America today revolves around competing visions for the country’s future. At the forefront, the left has elevated equity to a near-sacred status. But pure equity is a fiction. Absolute equality among individuals is impossible because humans are inherently diverse in abilities, circumstances, and choices. Chasing this unattainable goal exposes a deeper issue: the resentment-fueled desire to erase all distinctions.

To enforce equity, someone has to decide who gets “leveled up” or “leveled down,” which inevitably means government coercion and property rights violations. Those who champion equity see themselves as morally superior, believing they have the right to impose their vision on those they deem less enlightened. This kind of arrogance—this belief that a select few are entitled to reshape society according to their ideals—is dangerous.

The irony, of course, is hard to miss. Equity advocates claim to seek fairness, yet their methods—coercion, unequal treatment, and rejection of individual merit—starkly contrast with the principles of the rule of law. This tension between ends and means is glaring. Instead of celebrating strength, self-realization, and the thrill of overcoming life’s challenges, equity seeks to flatten it all out. The pursuit of equity may come from a place of good intentions, but it will erode individual freedom, breed resentment, and stifle human flourishing.

Do you believe that a course in ethics and integrity should be taught in every academic institution?  Why?

The need for courses on ethics and integrity in all academic institutions is obvious, but it raises an important question: Who should teach these concepts? During my years in higher education, I’ve noticed that many academics, instead of upholding ethical standards, often push ideologies that undermine them. This creates a challenge when it comes to teaching ethics effectively.

One possible solution is adopting a Great Books curriculum, which would introduce students to what Matthew Arnold called “the best that has been thought and said” throughout history and offer a solid, unbiased foundation for ethical understanding. A motivated, curious person can understand ethics and integrity more deeply by diving into the Great Books independently. The Mortimer Adler series, for example, is a great starting point for anyone wanting to explore this vast wealth of knowledge.

My concern is that students at many universities today might lose their grasp on ethics and integrity rather than improve it. In short, while ethics education is important, we must rethink how it’s being taught. Returning to the lasting wisdom in the Great Books could be the key to doing it right.

What qualities do you believe are necessary if one wants to achieve success in business, especially as an entrepreneur?

I’m not an entrepreneur and don’t think entrepreneurship can be taught. However, I’ve observed that successful entrepreneurs tend to share certain traits. They have an unwavering belief in their ideas, tenacity when facing difficulties and setbacks, and a high tolerance for risk. These traits seem intrinsic to the entrepreneurial character and are difficult to cultivate through traditional educational methods.

Of course, entrepreneurship isn’t the only road to business success. Many find success by tapping into different strengths and skills. Some thrive by being great at raising capital, using their talent to secure financial backing. Others succeed by being strong managers, skillfully leading teams and driving constructive results. And then some outwork everyone around them. Their success comes from their work ethic—putting in the extra effort and going above and beyond, no matter their role.

What do you believe is necessary for a novel to become a best seller?

The sad reality in 2024 is that, in the publishing world, an author’s identity outweighs the quality of their work when it comes to sales. Publishers increasingly prioritize writers from so-called marginalized communities or ethnic minorities, promoting their work even when it falls short in substance. Bestselling authors like Jonathan Franzen, John Grisham, Stephen King, and Don DeLillo were fortunate to launch their careers when the industry was more focused on the merit of the writing itself, rather than superficial factors like skin color. If they were starting out today, they might struggle to get published at all.

What process do you follow when you are about to write a book or an opinion piece?

I don’t have one set process. Each book or piece I write comes together differently. These days, much of my writing is commissioned, while some of it is academic. The scholarly work is something I do because I’m at a university, but honestly, I can’t stand it—no one reads peer-reviewed business journals, which are full of complete nonsense with little value in the workplace. There are too many charlatans in business schools. Occasionally, I’ll get an idea and jot it down in a notebook, or I’ll write a paragraph when inspiration strikes and eventually weave it into a Word document. It’s a bit of a patchwork.

What book, speech, or movie has left a lasting impression with you and why?

Gosh, so many. Although it’s not the chief message of Les Misérables, what has always stood out to me is how each character seems driven by principles and ideals. With a few notable and even comical exceptions, most of them aren’t distracted by trivial entertainment or wasting their lives on self-centered pursuits. They live with a sense of purpose, and the story carries Christian undertones.

What books are you currently reading?

I usually manage about a dozen books at any given time. Some I finish, some I don’t. It really depends on how engaging they are and whether I’m reading for work or pleasure, though honestly, the line between the two often blurs for me. Right now, I’m reading The Enlightenment by Ritchie Robertson, Decade of Disunion by Robert Merry, On Beauty by Zadie Smith, Truths by Vivek Ramaswamy, Shepherds for Sale by Megan Basham, and a collection of essays on death by 19th-century pastor B.M. Palmer.

Do you have a favorite quote, if so why does it resonate with you?

I don’t have many favorites—no matter the category. I enjoy many things and find it hard to rank them in any hierarchy.

What is the most distinctive attribute/character of the people in the state where you grew up that you genuinely admire?

I grew up in the suburbs of Atlanta, a region that defies simple categorization because of its complex social and cultural dynamics. This area then existed at the crossroads of two distinct Southern paradigms: the “Old South,” steeped in tradition and social etiquette, and the “New South,” characterized by rapid urbanization and a growing cosmopolitanism.

Atlanta’s relentless expansion into the surrounding suburbs gradually diminished the unique features that once defined the region. The urban sprawl brought new residents from all over the country and other countries, creating a cultural mosaic that increasingly overshadowed the area’s historical identity.

Traditionally a stronghold of conservative values, the region has experienced significant socio-political shifts that reflect broader national trends. These changes have profoundly altered the city, which resembles other major urban centers across the United States. While this homogenization has certain advantages, it has come at the expense of local distinctiveness. The sweeping forces of modernization and globalization have largely subsumed the unique charm and character that once set Atlanta apart. Oh, and the traffic there is terrible.

At the end of a stress-filled day what brings you peace of mind?

Sleep!

And last, but not least, where do you see yourself and this country in ten years?

I’m averse to forecasting and predictions, but as long as I’m around—and I plan to be for a while—I’ll be researching, writing, and speaking. I’m not sure what position I’ll hold, but I’ll do those things until, physically or mentally, I can no longer do them.