|
 o
you want to hear a wow-making anecdote? Good, I have one to tell
you: V. S. Naipaul, the new Nobel laureate, is in India, speaking
at a big conference. Someone gets up and says (roughly), “Sir
Vidia, as you know, India has always been the home of the spirit.
And now we are threatened by materialism. Don’t you think this
is an alarming thing — given that India is the home of the
spirit?”
And Naipaul
says (again, roughly), “I’m rather patient with materialism:
the poor need it.”
Brings the
house down. Never was Naipaul more Naipaulian (Naipauline?).
I noticed a headline: “Berkeley conservatives tell of death
threats.” I thought, This would strike many as an unbelievable
headline. But for me, it was very much believable: I’ve been
to college; I know it’s true. There was actually the smell
of violence in the air, and you felt that if you strayed from the
line, there would not only be ridicule and ostracism (and maybe
poor grades), but worse. Someday I plan to set this all down, in
detail.
That’s
one of the reasons I was so upset, as I wrote in this space before,
at Bea Arthur’s one-woman show, in which she posited herself
as so brave: I thought, Yeah, lady, try being a conservative on
campus.
I was not
particularly brave. Not at all (though I was braver than some).
In fact, the bravest kid I knew was one who wore a pin of little
tiny feet — an anti-abortion pin. He just didn’t care.
“If I
eat three turkey dinners, then announce that’s just beginners,
ain’t no-body’s business if I do.”
By now, you all must have seen this story, but just in case:
“A convicted
sex offender who fled into the woods when approached by a detective
is threatening to sue, saying he lost a few toes to frostbite because
police were slow in arresting him. Harvey Taylor, 48, spent at least
three nights in the woods after running from a Penobscot County
Sheriff’s detective a few weeks ago. ‘If the detective
had done his job, I wouldn’t be in here now. I would have been
in jail that very same day,’ Taylor told the Bangor Daily News
in an interview Tuesday from his hospital room.”
Liberals often
accuse conservatives of exaggerating the state of things (and sometimes
we do, I guess): “Litigious society,” indeed! But you
have to be carefully taught, as Mr. Hammerstein II said — and
this particular sex offender has been very carefully taught. And
what he has been taught is, When something goes wrong, you sue —
period.
As regular readers know, I find the Washington Post’s
Richard Cohen one of the most interesting left-of-center columnists
around. (You may retort, “That’s not saying much”
— but that’s another story.) One of the things that Cohen
has going for him is honesty — certainly as far as his own
beliefs and biases are concerned. In a recent column, he wrote the
words, “I like Bill Clinton and hate his enemies.” That
struck me as a brutally honest phrase. It was refreshing, I tell
you, to hear the admission, “I . . . hate his enemies.”
We are always told about the “Clinton haters” (why’re
you lookin’ at me?); given short shrift are the Clinton’s-enemies
haters.
Not long ago, CNN aired a segment on how to visit Cuba illegally.
Glenn Garvin, the Miami Herald’s TV critic, called this
“a bold bid for the all-important Felons Age 21-55 ratings
demographic.” Garvin continued, “I’ve been watching
television for more than 40 years, but this was the first time I’d
ever seen a network provide a detailed blueprint on how to violate
the law. . . . It’s illegal to visit North Korea, too, but
I guarantee that CNN will never do a how-to piece on Pyongyang.
Just as I can guarantee that Ted Turner will never travel there
to go duck hunting with Kim Jong Il” (as he did with Castro).
But here’s
the beauty party: Castro’s official daily, Granma, came
down hard on Garvin, rising to the defense of CNN — and of
Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, and CBS president Les Moonves, whom
Garvin had also criticized (for their “Oh, Fidel!”ness).
Still another
beauty part? Granma said that the Herald critic had
been “inspired by the old tyrannical style of Batista followers.”
That’s right: All of us who hate torture and oppression
in Cuba — and the excusing of it by free people — are
inspired by the old tyrannical style of Batista followers. It’s
in our blood, you know?
You may have heard that German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has
threatened to sue those who allege that he dyes his hair —
talk about a litigious society!
This reminded
me, of course, of Reagan, whom they — you know: “they”
— always accused of dying his hair. Reagan said: No, I don’t.
And many said, Yes, he does, but he can be forgiven for fibbing
about it — Hollywood vanity, you know. Besides, “age has
its prerogatives” (I’ve always hated that phrase).
Well, I didn’t
feel that way: I didn’t want Reagan to lie about anything.
There is no small lie, as far as I’m concerned. It’s
all one. And one of the most powerful things about this leader was
his truth-telling.
Reporters went
to the ends of the earth to prove that Reagan, in fact, dyed his
hair. At least one journo scooped up his locks on the barbershop
floor. Tests were done: and nope: No dice (which is to say, no dye).
Moon Reagan
— the Gipper’s only sibling — was interviewed, and
his hair remained largely dark. Family thing, he said.
Even Mike Wallace
— the 60 Minutes vet, who, as he likes to tell us, dated
Nancy Davis before Ronnie knew her — helpfully added that he,
too, was accused of dying his hair, though he did not: It was just
lucky genes. Reagan’s protestations were plausible.
Long as I’m
on Memory Lane, let me add that Alan Cranston, the California liberal
who ran for the Democratic nomination in ’84, dyed his hair
for that race. He (a former trackster) also ran wind sprints, on
airport tarmacs, for those weeks — all to prove that he was
“up to it.”
Bob Dole admitted
to dying his hair “a little” during the ’96 race.
That was stand-up: admitting it.
But, no, I
don’t think Reagan was lying: I don’t think he dyed his
hair. And I think it was important: that he was telling the truth.
Don’t
you?
Sorry, can’t get off former presidents. The first George Bush
made some crack about the traitor John Walker Lindh as “some
misguided Marin County hot-tubber.” So a local paper got back
at him, running letter after letter slamming the ex-prez and defending
the Marin homeland.
Finally, H.
W. wrote in and said, “Call off the dogs, please. I am chastened,
and will never use ‘hot tub’ and ‘Marin County’
in the same sentence again. I won’t even try to explain my
position except to say I was and remain so offended by John Walker
Lindh that I hurt others’ feelings. In the opinion of your
outraged letter writers, I condemned all of Marin County with a
hot-tub reference. Obviously, I struck a nerve.
“Now your
readers have attacked me on my granddaughters, on my residence,
on abortion, on Enron, on my being a Texan, and on my pronunciation
of ‘Marin.’ You name it, a lot of angst has surfaced,
and it’s all my fault.
“Though
I only garnered 23 percent of the vote in Marin in 1992, I was your
president and should have known better. I apologize to those who
supported me who were offended, and I also apologize to the unenlightened
who did not support me. I will now soak in my own hot tub and try
to be more sensitive to the feelings of others — not John Walker
Lindh, though.”
That’s
the H. W. we know and love (as we have chronicled recently in this
column). For someone who’s supposed to be a not terribly interesting
president or man, there are a wealth of anecdotes about him. (There
is a wealth? You puzzle it out: but remember: “There
are a lot of . . .” ) And we’ll hear and tell more of
these stories.
A Milwaukee reader writes to tell me that black activists in that
city are pushing for blacks-only classrooms — in the public
schools. He was shocked, as he should have been: but it’s an
old story. It happened in my hometown, too (Ann Arbor, Mich.). I
will say again what I said at the time: George Wallace, Lester Maddox,
Orval Faubus, and the boys would be so proud: The black Left has
come around to them. Segregation forever!
Said one of
the Milwaukee activists, “Just because we tend to think our
kids are getting a better education sitting in class with white
kids, that is not true. When you integrate and assimilate, you have
got no power.”
Sounds like
he’s Taking His Stand. Look, at this point, all you can do
is sigh and laugh.
After President Bush’s visit to China, a friend of mine spotted
a statement in a Washington Post article that he absolutely
loved. A Chinese student was quoted as saying — complaining
— “He [Bush] just kept talking and talking about freedom.
We get it. Does he think we’re stupid?”
My friend said,
“I would love to have that on my tombstone: ‘He just kept
talking and talking about freedom.’ Yeah, Reagan too: Wouldn’t
shut up about freedom. And Martin Luther King! I mean, that guy
couldn’t go five minutes without yakking about justice!”
So, keep going,
George W.: just keep “talking and talking about freedom.”
It does make a difference (see 1981-89).
Another friend of mine noticed that Mario Cuomo is making ads for
The Nation, the leftist magazine. It’s one of those
“See, I — a great man — am reading this magazine”
ads. My friend quipped, “A sure sign he’s not running
for office again.”
But where does
fair Mario stand on the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss? And the
nationalization of industry? And the withering away of the state?
And the Gulag? And . . .
“McCarthyism” — the charge — is a powerful weapon.
And a silencer. I feel that liberals and Democrats generally are
using it a lot lately. They criticize Bush’s handling of the
war; we criticize their criticisms — and, Aha! You’re
trying to stifle my right to dissent!
No, actually:
We’re just exercising our own right to speak our own minds.
McCarthyism is scoundrelly, but so is the cry of “McCarthyism!”
to silence your critics.
Right?
You may remember Lisa Birnbach. She was famous at one time, the
author of that Preppy Handbook and a wonderful Guide to Colleges.
I remember that guide well: It came out at just the right time for
me, and it was very entertaining to read. She was pretty, too —
remember the author’s photo?
And why am
I talking about Lisa Birnbach, a blast from the past? Well, she
has a
little piece in the current New Yorker, which I was glad
to see — she’s still doing the Sociology of America thing.
I don’t
have any point to make here; just feeling a little nostalgic.
Okay, more nostalgia: The old Mississippi senator John C. Stennis
has been in the news lately, or at least his name has: There is
an aircraft carrier named after him (he was chairman of the defense
committee, kind of a Richard Russell), and it is figuring in the
current war.
I remember
seeing Stennis, when I was an intern in the Senate. Eventually,
he had to have his leg amputated. I remember thinking that he was
rather brave — despite my revulsion against his politics. He
was one of the last of the old southern Democrats. I also remember
seeing Jennings Randolph, the old West Virginian, give his farewell
address. He looked like the stereotype of an old fat politician
— I liked the way he looked.
And then there
was ol’ Strom — who’s still there, almost 20 years
later.
Not to get
into Strom, but you know the weird thing about him (or one of them)?
His entry into the Senate happened mid-career for him. He’d
already been governor, a presidential candidate, and a lot of other
things — he wasn’t young, you know. Not like Ted Kennedy,
say, or Joe Biden — who was 29 when he was elected. (He turned
30 before his swearing-in, thus meeting the constitutional requirement.)
A quick word on the Letterman-Koppel thing: Television is a brutal
business, or rather, it’s a business, and that means: produce
(which means: make money). I remember, when rather young, being
struck by something that the late Brandon Tartikoff, who was head
of NBC, said: People would come up to him and wail and moan about
their favorite shows that had been canceled. He would respond that
he himself had to cancel his very favorite show: a sitcom
called Buffalo Bill, starring Dabney Coleman.
But guess what,
folks? Business. Can’t take the “business” out of
show business. And Ted Koppel has no right, divine or other, to
a half hour on ABC starting at 11:30 p.m. He may not know it, but
the republic will survive without him. I have — and I haven’t
seen that show since roughly college.
Also: Twenty-three
years is a long time to survive in that world. (The show
began with the Iranian hostage crisis, which began the day that
Ted K.’s awful interview with Roger Mudd aired — remember?)
A chilling photo in the New York Times, with a chilling caption:
“A Show of Solidarity: Wearing fake explosives, members of
the militant Islamic group Hamas marched yesterday with hundreds
of Palestinians in Jebalya in the Gaza Strip to thank those responsible
for weekend attacks against Israel.” (Actually, that would
have been better worded, “weekend murders of Israeli civilians.”)
And there they
are, marching down the street in white robes and white hoods. They
look for all the world like Klansmen — and a good thing, too,
for that is something that the American public can understand. Perhaps
even the editors of the New York Times.
I must say, I’ve received an unusual amount of mail saying,
“Most hated bumper sticker? ‘PRO-CHILD, PRO-CHOICE.’”
Lots of mentions of Orwell, too — and quite right.
A recent blurb or two on regionalisms brought a crush of mail, including
several notes from Michiganders saying, “What about, ‘Can
I help who’s next in line?’ ” These readers wonder
whether I have heard this outside of Michigan. And the answer is:
No — and I’m rather glad not to have heard it lately.
Had enough for one column? Yeah, me too. Later.
|
