|
 nvitations
can be tricky, as President Bush most keenly discovered on Monday
when he invited the whole legislative
gang to lunch and was greeted by only 193. We're told that Southwest
chicken and Angus beef were served, which raises the incidental
question: Were the kitchen staff advised by the relevant steward
that only one-third of the invitees would show up? If so, how was
the information gathered? Was the FBI called in, discreetly to inquire?
But the FBI is a crime- fighting outfit, and it is not a crime to
turn down a White House invitation. So it would have been a matter
of guesswork: How many Democratic legislators, how many GOP, would
turn up? Leaving unanswered the question: What was done with all
the leftover chicken and beef?
Then there is the question of motive. Attention focuses on what
it is that caused individual senators and congressmen to stay away.
Observers were quick to point out that Monday is a busy day for
Congressmen, often spent traveling back from weekend work in their
home districts. They just couldn't alter their plans on such short
notice. But then there were others who were free, or could manage
to be free, but chose not to accept the invitation. When that happened
to another king, in another age, he was wroth: and sent forth his
agents to get other guests, teaching us that many are called but
few are chosen.
Social invitations that run up against politics cause potentially
embarrassing situations. Might President Bush have accosted Congressman
Gephardt, his mouth full of chicken, and said: "Remember, Dicky-boy,
there's no such thing as a free lunch!" What would the minority
leader have done? With the host? With the food?
Two days before the White House's failed lunch, the White House
Correspondents had their annual dinner party, a huge affair with
several thousand diners. A mischievous table arranger managed to
seat, at a single table, Charles Colson, Pat Robertson, and the
Ambassador from China and his wife.
The White House Correspondents' dinner calls for an amusing speech
by the president and an amusing speech by a professional comedian,
and the difference between the two is progressively difficult to
isolate. The president's address on Saturday was made up of snippets
from mother's family picture album projected on huge screens, and
accompanied by jocular commentary by the president. One picture
showed 21-year-old George W. standing alongside a fighter plane
in Texas when he served in the Texas Air National Guard. The comment
was, "I'm the one who committed the state of Texas to defend Taiwan
from attack."
That brought a roar of laughter from everyone, but not from Yang
Jiechi, no sirree. He sat frozen in his chair, his features coldly
set in resolute disapproval. One has to wonder: Would it have been
reported to Peking if the ambassador had actually — laughed?
It was a nice political joke, but reminded us that totalitarians
can't take a joke. Ogden Nash wrote 60 years ago that if Germans
had merely paused for one minute to view themselves goose-stepping,
arms upraised, declaiming Heil Hitler! what would have happened
would be a national convulsion of self-derisive mirth, which is
always to be preferred to a world war.
But then, moments later — just when the ambassador was beginning
to enjoy his steak — who gets introduced from the dais?
Shane Osborn.
And the whole assembly breaks out in applause.
So there is Peking's man in Washington, seated — which was
torture enough — between the two most prominent Christian activists
in America, trying to get through his meal, and having what seemed
all of Washington cheering and applauding the commander of a USA
spy plane that had tossed a Chinese cowboy into the sea, and then
landed on Chinese soil!
Who invited Mr. Yang? Was he warned that Americans laugh? Are capable
of laughing at their own expense, but also at the expense of Peking?
And that they are capable of not laughing when Peking perseveres
in its unholy wars against religious faith?
But dinner at the Capital Hilton that night was a high-price affair,
and the place was crowded. Maybe President Bush should have put
a higher price tag on lunch at the White House. Clinton did, and
had a stream of guests.
|
