|
 oughly
every other day, I read, or hear about, John F. Kennedy’s alleged
witticism uttered at Yale, when he received an honorary degree:
“Now I have the best of two worlds: a Harvard education and
a Yale degree.” Kennedyites repeat this as though intoning
a favorite Scripture; to them, it represents the height of wit and
style. My problem has always been: It's nonsensical. I mean, isn’t
it? I count it as one of those things that sound good — perceptive,
elegant, a little mordant — but are actually rather empty.
Has a Yale degree ever been worth more than one from farther north?
Has a Harvard education ever been accepted as superior to one gained
to the south? Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think it’s
a bad line. I just wonder whether it deserves the exaltation it
has received for all these years.
Now we get to George W. Bush. A couple of weeks ago, he, too, spoke
at Yale, also receiving an honorary degree. His remarks were devoid
of politics; instead, he talked about his alma mater, in a light
and delightful way. One of the things this ostensibly tongue-tied
president said was, “Everything I know about the English language,
I learned at Yale.” I don’t know about you, but I think
this crack is one of the most hilarious I’ve heard in a long
while. It acknowledges an alleged weakness, and it pokes some fun
at a sometimes-pompous institution. This witticism, for my money,
is much better than JFK’s. But will it ever be acknowledged
as such? Well, let it be — by us.
 May
I complain about something Jeffords-related, please? I could go
on for an hour or two (and have), but let me confine myself to one,
teeny-tiny thing: An article by Robin Toner in Thursday’s New
York Times included the sentence, “Senator James M. Jeffords’s
decision to leave the party and become an independent, which threw
the Senate to the Democrats, was denounced today by Senator Trent
Lott …” What’s wrong with that sentence, sports
fans? Exactly: “which threw the Senate to the Democrats.”
Jeffords’s decision to quit the GOP and become an independent
did not throw the Senate to the Democrats; Jeffords’s
decision to throw the Senate to the Democrats threw the Senate to
the Democrats. These were two separate acts, and they should be
treated as such. To become an independent was one thing; to give
the Senate to the Democrats was another (Jeffords did so by agreeing
to “caucus” with them). Jeffords could have done the former
without doing the latter. Unfortunately, the line between the two
acts has been blurred, by those who wish the Republicans no good.
We, in our conversation and writing, should make the line brighter.
Little
that John McCain has done has bothered Republicans so much as his
glee over the loss of the Senate. That was a strange way for a Republican
senator to respond, wasn’t it? The Senate has fallen into the
hands of the Democrats: Yippee! McCain at least might have tried
to contain his joy. To exult over the loss of the upper chamber
of Congress is perverse. Doesn’t McCain think it’s bad
for the country for the Senate to be controlled by Democrats? Is
it good news that Joe Biden, not Jesse Helms, is chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee? Is it good news that Pat Leahy, not
Orrin Hatch, now heads the Judiciary Committee? We can debate all
we want about whether McCain should follow Jeffords’s lead
and exit the GOP. But most Republicans should agree that a Democratic
Senate is a severe blow, for reasons of principle and policy, and
that a celebration of this setback is a bit unseemly.
Anybody
who believes that the Republican party is less tolerant of internal
dissent than the Democratic party — which is to say, almost
everyone who works for a major news organ — hasn't been paying
attention. To cite merely our favorite example: The Democratic party
forbids the appearance of pro-life speakers at its conventions;
half the speakers at Republican conventions (or more?) are pro-choice.
I suppose I agree that the conventional wisdom is usually right,
though I’d have to think about it some more; here, though,
the conventional wisdom is absurd.
I’m
going to stroll down Memory Lane for a sec. When I was coming of
age, politically, the great, passionate issue was apartheid in South
Africa. Aside from “the Boer Republic,” as Pat Buchanan
used to refer to it, the great demon in my circles was President
Ronald Reagan. And the demon within the demon was a man named Chester
Crocker, who was the architect, or at least the implementer, of
the policy known as “constructive engagement.” Oh, how
those words “constructive engagement” were spat out, as
though you had said “genocide”; and, oh, how the name
Chester Crocker was spat out, reviled, as though you had said “Satan”
(or “Schlafly”). My Left hated both Betty Crocker (for
her whiteness and overall Middle Americanness) and Chester Crocker.
Anyway, the hated Chester Crocker is back, and, incidentally, not
much of a demon anymore: He is the prospective envoy for W.’s
State Department to Sudan. Yet there is a problem: Apparently, he
is requesting that he be shielded from another demon, namely the
Christian Right, if he is to take the post. As he tackles the brutal
war in that country, the principal victims of which are Christians
in the South, he does not want to be hassled by yahoo, Jesus-lovin’
activists at home.
I wonder how my friends like Chester Crocker, and his notions of
constructive engagement, now?
The
young aide to Bush adviser Mark McKinnon has now pleaded guilty
to being the “mole” — the one who sent debate-prep
materials from Austin to the Gore campaign. Case closed, right?
For most people, yes, but not for me. Do you recall the Gore staffer
who boasted in e-mails to friends that the Gore people had a mole
in the Bush campaign? And do you recall that this guy signed a false
affidavit? And do you recall that the Gore people quickly prepared
another one for him? And that this guy was suspended, not fired,
but suspended from the campaign — with pay? I didn’t think
so: There’s no one to remind you. You don’t have to be
a liberal-media obsessive to grant the following: that if a Bush
staffer had claimed a mole in the other campaign, and proceeded
to lie about it, and was suspended from the campaign with pay
(which smells of cover-up/keep-'im-happy), it would have been a
story. It would have been page-one, top-of-the-hour until things
were set right. The media devoted much space and time to less significant
things: like “RATS.”
Many
readers have expressed an interest in acquiring the book I wrote
about in a recent issue of the magazine: The American Citizens
Handbook, published for decades by the National Education Association,
but unavailable since 1968. The NEA actually paid someone to bury
its remaining 10,000 copies. Small wonder: The Handbook represented
a high and glorious liberalism that the NEA, and every other “liberal,”
came to reject. Readers have wondered how to get a hold of this
book, long out of print, and extremely pricey on Internet used-book
services. I will say, George Bush (the Elder) style, Stay tuned:
Help is on the way (oh, hang on, that second part is from a later
candidate).
While
we’re on books: Joe and Hadassah Lieberman have begun work
on theirs, a campaign memoir. Couldn’t you just write it?
Most
of the time, when conservatives try to play nicey-nice with the
Left, they get burned. I was reminded of this, for the 4 millionth
or so time, when interior secretary Gale Norton invited Robert Redford
to participate with her at some environmentalist function. Redford
put out a splashy “no,” explaining that he could not give
aid and comfort to Nazis (basically). The idea that Robert Redford
can be made common cause with, reached out to, was never very bright.
He is not a nice, mushy, well-meaning liberal, but a pretty firm
Castroite, and the beautiful face he once had should not mask this
nasty fact.
Speaking
of beautiful faces: Phyllis George, the former Miss Texas and Miss
America, may run for office in Kentucky, where she was once first
lady. Miss George — I guess she’s not Mrs. Brown anymore,
as she is divorced from former Kentucky governor John Y. Brown —
is the first Miss America I remember, and I think perhaps the most
beautiful, of all time (with apologies to Bess Myerson, Vanessa
Williams, and the rest of the gals). Celebrities can get elected
to most anything, it seems. Though she’s a Texan and now a
New Yorker (a Park Avenuite), I wouldn’t bet against Phyllis
George, Democrat, in Kentucky. And, you know, she’s still got
the look.
The
New York Times crossword puzzle of May 31, 56 across: “He
stopped smoking cigars in 1985.” Answer: “Castro.”
Yes, that’s one way to describe the Cuban dictator; and it
is both a more accurate and a more fair way than many of those the
Times has used over the years.
I’m
afraid I’ll end on a sad note, also related to Cuba: The dissident
and political prisoner Marcelo Diosdado has died there. As far as
his widow is concerned, the authorities killed him. Diosdado was
a brave and inspiring man. He had long protested against the Communist
regime, and he was, of course, brutalized because of it. On May
20, he finally gave out at Aguaderos prison in the province of Santiago
de Cuba. Diosdado suffered from chronic circulatory problems, and
on that day he experienced a severe attack. The authorities would
not provide medical care. His death, whose details I will leave
aside, was hideous.
According to Mrs. Diosdado, the funeral featured something of a
pro-democracy demonstration, which caused the police to move in
with sticks. They beat many of the mourner-protesters. The people
began to chant, “Down with Fidel! Freedom!” After much
harassment and insanity, the family at last got the body buried.
The pain of all of Cuban dissidence is acute. The unconcern of so
many others is a scandal.
|
