June 16, 2004, 8:29 a.m.
The uses of Reagan. Communist thuggery. What’s in a (magazine) name? Etc.

I'm sure I'm not the first to notice this trend: Liberal journalists are taking great offense at the notion that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have some things in common. W. is no Reagan, they're saying.

But, of course, when Ronald Reagan was in action, they had virtually nothing good to say about the man!

Frank Rich has written an instant classic of the Bush-is-no-Reagan genre, saying that at least Reagan had lived a real life, whereas W. has not. Funny, but I would guess that Frank Rich gave Reagan no credit for having lived a real life back when the Gipper was trampling on the poor and threatening nuclear catastrophe.

(Incidentally, Rich writes, "Bush can be found communing with nature each time his administration takes a whack at the environment." When, pray tell, has the Bush administration ever — ever — taken a whack at the environment? At the New York Times, however — where Rich works — this is evidently assumed.)

In her own Times piece, Elisabeth Bumiller writes that Reagan reached out to Washington society — you know, the Georgetown set (not Anacostia) — whereas "the Bushes . . . have gone to bed early and kept largely to themselves . . ."

Funny, but I don't recall Reagan getting any credit for mingling with Mrs. Graham and her crowd during the 1980s. In fact, I recall that the press disdained him for running against "the puzzle palaces on the Potomac," etc.

But, you know: Any stick to beat Bush with.

And people have loved to quote young Ron Reagan's 2000 remark about W.: "What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

Back in 2000 — when Ronald P. said that — an astute friend of mine made a particularly astute observation.

It is January 1981, and a presidential inauguration is taking place. On the dais are two men named Ronald Reagan and two men named George Bush. Who would ever have guessed that, 20 years later, the younger George Bush would be taking the presidential oath of office himself. And the other Ron Reagan?

It may rankle. But that is mere psychological speculation.

One man who's not letting Reagan-praise get him down is Roger Cohen, of the International Herald Tribune (basically, the New York Times abroad). He's still sockin' it to the old guy: "[Reagan's] attacks on people on welfare were ugly, particularly the women he liked to refer to as 'Cadillac welfare queens.'"

Think about that: Ronald Reagan attacking people on welfare? Particularly women? And catch that "liked to refer" — you know, I don't think he made a "Cadillac" quip at any point during his presidency. But some were abusing the welfare system, no question about it. I think most everyone admits that now.

More Cohen: "[Reagan and Margaret Thatcher] believed, as Thatcher once put it, that the Soviet Union wanted to achieve the 'total triumph of socialism all over the world.'" You will have discerned the implication: that these kooks believed it, ridiculous though it was.

But at the end of his piece, Cohen turned the Frank Rich trick of (sort of) praising Reagan to damn President Bush: "Reagan exercised power with simplicity. Bush often seems to exercise simplicity with power."

Ah, yes. Cute, cute. And so safe.

A headline in the Herald Tribune: "Local vote deals big setback to Labour." It says something about the times — and perhaps about me — that I was very, very sorry to read that headline. According to the analysis, Tony Blair's party suffered because of the prime minister's decisions on Iraq.

His intra-Labour nemesis, Clare Short, said, "What we did in Iraq has brought disgrace and dishonor on Britain around the world."

No, it hasn't, honey: It has raised Britain to the skies.

I like Blair's forthrightness, so unlike what we hear from American politicians. What, forthrightness from this famous Clintonian obfuscator? Bear with me.

On Election Night here, when one party is getting shellacked, spokesmen for the losing party put out some absurd spin. But listen to Blair. Asked to comment on his party's losses, he said, "I am mortified that we are not doing better than we have done."

I am mortified.

I love that. I can't imagine an American politician saying it, no matter how apt the remark.

One subject that has not been sufficiently discussed is the thuggery of Communist "diplomats" and other representatives around the globe. I mean, physical thuggery. Cuba's diplomats are infamously physical, only a couple of months ago attacking Frank Calzon, a democracy leader. This was at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, no less.

And now I see this, from Reuters:

"The police in Hungary seized a member of the delegation of President Hu Jintao of China on Friday. The member had punctured balloons and pushed demonstrators at a pro-Tibetan rally in central Budapest, the police said. The official, who is protected by diplomatic immunity, was released after being led away from the rally, the police said. Some 20 people had gathered late Thursday to protest China's policy on Tibet, which it claims as part of its territory."

Yes, an insufficiently discussed subject.

The New York Times's Richard Bernstein — who does excellent reporting from Europe — recorded something interesting in a Herald Tribune piece on Silvio Berlusconi: Demonstrators in Rome shouted, "Ten, a hundred, a thousand Nasiriyas!" (Nasiriya is the place where those Italian policemen were attacked.) That reminds me a bit of that "million Mogadishus" guy, the Columbia prof.

Just so we keep straight the character of the Left (which is also Silvio's point, as the Bernstein piece says).

Last week, in France, I saw many posters that said, "Vote Euro-Palestine. Peace in Europe depends on justice in the Middle East."

Think about that poster — think about it hard — and shudder.

Since I so often knock Colin Powell, I thought I would doff my cap to him. There is some question of whether genocide is occurring in Sudan. Said our secretary of state, "I'm not prepared to say what is the correct legal term for what's happening. All I know is that there are at least a million people who are desperately in need, and many of them will die if we can't get the international community mobilized and if we can't get the Sudanese to cooperate with the international community. And it won't make a whole lot of difference after the fact what you've called it."

It won't make a whole lot of difference . . . Bravo.

Donald Rumsfeld's name is supposed to be mud now, but it's not mud with me — and never will be. It's been a while since I quoted Rummy-speak, so let me get back to it. He said, a couple of weeks ago, "It seems to me our expectations have to be recast and be realistic. It's a tough, ugly business to get from a dictatorship to a freer system."

Yes, a "tough, ugly business" — sort of like "long, hard slog." And we're not talking about pure, Thornton Wilderesque democracy: a "freer system" would be good enough, thank you very much.

Also, he was asked "why voters should return President Bush to the White House in November." (I'm quoting the New York Times.) Rumsfeld responded that the president had asked him and Secretary Powell not to get involved in partisan politics — but "if I were a civilian, I could sure give you a whale of an answer."

A whale of an answer, indeed!

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm giving up (almost) entirely on the wire services, so rank is their bias. No, it's not just Reuters, the outfit that refuses to call a terrorist a terrorist — even Osama bin Laden! Here's a bit from an AP story yesterday: "The GOP had raised questions about Cleland's patriotism because of his position on legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security."

Now, I don't think the GOP raised questions about Senator Cleland's patriotism (Byron York disposed of this matter in a recent issue of NR). But that's not the point. Many Democrats maintain that the GOP did this — and the Associated Press converts this charge into a fact, to be repeated in news stories.

Come on!

I'll tell you what I have given up on, entirely: getting people to say, and write, "National Review," instead of "The National Review." The name of our magazine is "National Review" — has been since 1955 (the glorious beginning). A lot of people want to say "The National Review," not realizing that our name is more modest, in that it allows for different national reviews!

In last Sunday's New York Times, William Safire's language column referred to "The National Review" (the author was citing the title of our Mark Steyn's column, "Happy Warrior").

The National Review in William Safire's language column in the New York Times.

As I said, I give up. I think.

Bill Safire is responsible for one of the best quips ever about National Review (I paraphrase): "I go down to the corner news stand to buy a Hustler magazine, just to have something respectable to hide my National Review in."

I got loads more, sports fans, but we have to save something for future dates.

Oh, let me conclude with this. You know my crusade (George W. Bush can't use this word, but I can) against the substitution of the word "holiday" for "Christmas"? A friend of mine said that he saw an ad for a movie. When was it coming out? "Holiday 2004" (said the ad).

I don't think they meant Columbus Day.

Ugh.

Later.

*   *   *

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!