November 03, 2003, 8:07 a.m.
The stakes, Jack Spratt, Cervantes, &c.

I've said it before, but, since I'm more convinced of it than ever, I'll say it again: The principal Republican theme of '04 should be, The times are too crucial to allow the Democratic party in office. The challenge is too severe. Our enemies are too wicked and persistent. Decisions to be made are too hard (and in some cases risky). The spine required is too great.

Sure, in 1992, with the Cold War over, after about 45 years, Americans thought they could give themselves a breather with a slick, draft-dodging, all-promising Democrat from the New Class. And in the 1990s we had our holiday from history. But times are tough now — the "world" is back — and the Democrats aren't ready for prime time. There's a global war on terror to wage, for heaven's sake. Zell Miller, in endorsing Bush, said he had "a little Churchill in him." That may strike some as extreme, but look at the Democratic presidential candidates — and the Democrats' leaders in Congress — and see if you can detect any.

A lot of us have said, since 9/11, that if the Democrats had had power — executive power — they would have treated that day, primarily, as a "legal incident" (much like the World Trade Center bombing of 1993). This allegation might seem unduly harsh, unfair. But I give you a couple of quotes collected by Morton Kondracke, and then disseminated by Bushies.

From Wesley Clark: "[After September 11, America] should have immediately gone to the United Nations, developed a legal definition of terrorism — and indicted Osama bin Laden." And from John Kerry: "This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation."

All the Democrats say — and most people assume — that a Democratic president (Gore, say) would have "done" Afghanistan: would have gone to war to ruin the Taliban and attack al Qaeda. I'm not so sure. But, fortunately, we'll never know. Andrew Cuomo's words (which I recently discussed) are all too apt: The Democrats blew the "seminal" moment of the age, providing no leadership, blind to the exigencies of the new environment.

At a recent debate, Wesley Clark said, "President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today."

A man who would make a kindergarten comment like this has no business being president — and no business being a general (a retired one, maybe). Note, too, that "Instead" — despicable.

Our nation has a lot of problems, and I think particularly of the thuggery that has emerged in the Philadelphia mayoral election (courtesy the backers of John Street). But I was brought up short by an AP report from Colombia: "After a violent campaign period in which dozens of candidates were killed, Colombians elected state and municipal leaders on Sunday . . ."

. . . in which dozens of candidates were killed . . . Lordy, how some people have to struggle for their democracy.

The most chilling thing I have read recently comes from a New York Times story on the Yukos affair in Russia, and the public reaction to it. Said "one powerful Russian businessman," as the story described him, "The thing we forget [is that] we have a Communist populace." A deeply informed Russian-American observer tells me it isn't true. Still — chilling.

Joe Lieberman has cut an ad claiming courage for supporting the $87 billion for Iraq. He says, "That's the price we're paying because George Bush antagonized our allies and had no plan to win the peace."

"Our allies," huh? That must mean Germany and France — only. (You could throw lovely Belgium in there, too.) To hell with such negligible nations as Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, and Poland. And to hell with the scores of other countries that make up a 90-state coalition.

And "no plan to win the peace"? It so happens that the Iraq situation is hard. Some situations are. Some things, in real life, can't be resolved cleanly as in a 22-minute sitcom. So what "plan" of Joe Lieberman's would have spared us the pain we're now facing — pain that must be endured and overcome?

Forgive me for repeating a truism, something we all should have memorized by age four: Most things worth doing — necessary to do — are hard.

I don't know about you, but I'm a tiny bit annoyed at reading articles about Gephardt et al. that say that, though these candidates are for "civil unions" and so on, they're "against" gay marriage. Of course they're not against gay marriage! They just feel it unsafe, at this juncture, to confess their support of it. I wish a reporter would ask a candidate, "Exactly why, sir, are you against gay marriage?" What would follow, I imagine, is a lot of sputtering. Because they're not, of course. And most aren't candid enough to say what they really think, i.e., "The people are too thick and bigoted to go along."

May I direct your attention to a sports story . . . that is also a Cuba story? Maels Rodriguez, a pitcher, and Yobal Duenas, a second baseman, have defected. The Times report airs some interesting things about athletes and the regime, even if its lead is a little snarky: Those fellows "follow[ed] the route of previous Cuban defectors who went on to make millions in major league baseball."

The chance to fulfill one's potential, including economic potential, is part of freedom — but I wager that those men defected for more than the opportunity to "make millions." After all, lots and lots of Cubans try to leave — and not many are likely to become millionaires. Perhaps they merely (merely!) wish not to live in a totalitarian police state?

When I'm in Europe (particularly), those arguing with me will sometimes say, "Even your conservatives in Germany . . ." I occasionally respond, "Whaddya mean 'mine,' baby?"

A Christian Democratic parliamentarian named Martin Hohmann has called Jews a "race of perpetrators" for their role in the Russian Revolution. "In an Oct. 3 speech in Neuhof [I'm quoting from the Times] . . . Mr. Hohmann compared the killings in Russia's violent 1917 revolution, which he said were orchestrated by Jewish Bolsheviks, with the murder of Europe's Jews during the Holocaust."

Um, forgive me, dear friends, I don't necessarily root for the Right in Germany (or Austria or some other places as well). Not that Joschka Fischer & Co. are any prizes, to be sure.

I perhaps am the last one to notice this — or late to notice it — but the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee is John M. Spratt Jr. — you know, Jack Spratt. On the Budget Committee.

Isn't that perfect? Just where he ought to be! Only Rep. Spratt is a Democrat, when he should be a Republican — just to make it really perfect.

In a Times article two days ago under the byline of Joel Brinkley, I was struck by the following: "Over the past month, more than a dozen former senior members of Saddam Hussein's government have been shot dead in the streets of this normally peaceful city . . ." I couldn't help thinking, "Er, what do you mean 'normally'?" No city could have been peaceful when former senior members of Saddam Hussein's government were at work. There was certainly no peace for the tortured, or their families.

(To be sure, the writer must have meant, by "normally," in the last several months.)

A hilarious comment, that should not escape your attention: At a recent Democratic gathering, there were lots and lots of American flags on display. This apparently is the new Democratic style. A defense contractor there told a reporter, "It's nice to see a flag associated with progressive causes. And it isn't upside down"!!!

Remember when those House Republicans took to the Capitol steps to sing "We Shall Overcome," and were accused of not knowing the words?

The New York Times Sunday Magazine interviewed Noam Chomsky, and asked him the mushiest questions. I would have asked him . . . hmm, I don't know: "Are you sorry that the Khmer Rouge didn't kill more people? Are there entirely too many Cambodians left over? Some of them even wear glasses!"

Reviewing two books on Franklin Roosevelt was Jeff Shesol, a former Clinton speechwriter. He writes, "[Robert] Jackson offers a rare glimpse of F.D.R. at ease, back before presidential vacations became a sort of public theater, performed in denim workshirts in front of photographers."

Hmm, now what could that mean? Is he thinking of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush? Well, his president took polls to determine where to go on vacation, and what to do. Ronald Reagan loved to clear brush — Lord knows why — and did it obsessively, when no one at all was around except possibly for his foreman. And George W. Bush was doing those ranchly things pre-cameras, and will do them post-cameras, rest assured (and in the most oppressive heat — again, Lord knows why). As for Clinton: He hasn't been camping lately, has he, since the summer of '96?

Sheshol ends his piece with a warning that Bush is junking the Constitution à la FDR with Japanese internment — but that's another point, and rant.

A reader shaking with apoplexy wrote me to say, "Jay, I just finished reading the Washington Times and ran across the following item: 'United Press International reports that Mrs. Clinton said the Bush administration's secrecy about September 11 and prewar intelligence on Iraq was "more about political embarrassment than national security." As a result, "the pillars of [our] democracy are shaking," said the former first lady, who invoked executive secrecy to protect discussions by her health care task force. She said the White House's refusal to hand over documents to the commission "unnecessarily raises suspicions that it has something to hide — that it might use national security to hide mistakes."'"

I was afraid my reader wouldn't recover from this — I'm afraid I won't.

Okay, we'll end with a little language. In the New York Times Book Review, Carlos Fuentes reviewed a new translation of Don Quixote, by one Edith Grossman (the translation, that is). He hailed this translation, calling it his favorite. He said, "Edith Grossman delivers her 'Quixote' in plain but plentiful contemporary English. The quality of her translation is evident in the opening line: 'Somewhere in La Mancha, in a place whose name I do not care to remember, a gentleman lived not long ago, one of those who has a lance and ancient shield on a shelf and keeps a skinny nag and a greyhound for racing.'"

Uh-uh, nosirree: That must be, "one of those who have a lance . . . and keep a skinny nag . . ."

Sorry, Edith, and sorry, Carlos.

And finally, I realize that "sculpture" is a legitimate verb, but it can be very hard to read, as in this sentence from a story about the recent presidential drama at Boston University: "Dr. Silber, who had been telling friends that he was looking forward to retiring and time to sculpture and write books about Kant, will become president emeritus."

That sentence may be correct, but it took me forever to read — or to get.

Hope that hasn't been true of you here, dear ones!

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!