The damnable war, Joe Lieberman again, three heroines, &c.

February 13, 2002 8:55 a.m.

he news out of Afghanistan is disturbing: that U.S. troops seized the wrong people, abused the wrong people. (Whether it’s permissible to abuse the “right” people is a subject out of the purview of this particular item.)

I would like to reinforce a point that Donald Rumsfeld has made in the last months: The war is entirely the responsibility of America’s enemies. We didn’t seek this war; didn’t want it. It has been forced on us. And rotten, horrible things happen in war, not least the killing of innocents. As you may have heard once or twice, war is hell — not that there isn’t civilized and uncivilized behavior within war (or barbaric and less barbaric behavior, if you like). Individuals have responsibilities even in war; war is not a free-for-all, an invitation to outright lawlessness.

But the fault for the fact of this war lies squarely with our enemies. America fights as fair as any nation ever has, in the history of . . . well, in history. One of the things that make the “evil ones” evil is that they have involved us in about the worst of all human activities, namely war. All the more reason to beat them: thoroughly and fast.

Norman Mailer is not very happy, as you might imagine: too much patriotism in the air (in the United States, I mean). Said the great — or at least the very skilled and very famous — novelist, “What happened [on Sept. 11] was horrific, but this patriotic fever can go too far. America has an almost obscene infatuation with itself. Has there ever been a big, powerful country as patriotic as America?” (Oh, yes, many — but the literarily gifted can’t be bothered with history.)

Mailer also said, “The right wing benefits so much from September 11 that, if I were still a conspiratorialist, I would believe they’d done it.” That was a nice touch: “if I were still a conspiratorialist.” Of course, New Yorker writer John Lahr’s first reaction to the mass murder committed against us was that Bush had concocted it to bolster support for Star Wars: “Isn’t it odd,” wrote Lahr, “that on the day — the DAY — that the Democrats launched their most blistering attack on ‘the absolute lunacy’ of Bush’s unproven missile-defense system . . . the rogue nation should suddenly become such a terrifying reality?”

Why do I mention the rantings of these nut-jobs? Par for the course, I know. But they help prove what some of us have long been saying, to much pooh-poohing from the (softer) Left: that many on the left are angriest about the resurgent patriotism, the renewed appreciation of this country and the West, and any “benefit” that might accrue to the “Right” (by which they mean, I take it, anyone who fancies that the United States is worth defending and preserving).

I remember writing during the Lewinsky scandal that the reason so many in the media and (elsewhere) on the left couldn’t bring themselves to support our criticisms of President Clinton was that they were terrified that somewhere, in some way, Jerry Falwell might be smiling.

Guenter Grass says that the 9/11 attacks were attacks by the “poor” on the “rich,” in protest of Third World poverty. Ted Turner says the same thing. But Grass, a Nobel Prize winner in literature, is brilliant, while Turner is dumb, right? No: They’re both smart, and they’ve both made themselves huge successes. They’re just . . . blind, bad? Talk about outside the purview of this column.

One of the most irritating consequences of the Enron affair is that we have stupid ol’ campaign-finance “reform” thrust on us again: and the Democrats and their few McCainiac allies are saying that the Bush Republican party is “anti-reform,” unlike the good ol’ — not just Grand Old, but good ol’ — GOP of Teddy Roosevelt.

Since this is a day of repeating the basics, bear with me. I will keep saying it until someone hears me: Mitch McConnell and the other staunch anti-McCainiacs are reformers too, when it comes to campaign finance. But their reforms are liberalizing; these guys aren’t happy with the status quo; they want the rules liberalized. But McConnell et al. aren’t called reformers; only the restricters are called reformers — and that’s because those doing the calling favor McCain-style changes. Those who favor McConnell-style changes are called . . . well, pretty much what Bush calls al Qaeda.

And the idea that the Bush party is anti-reform is absurd on its face: We are for campaign-finance reform (though of a different kind). We’re for school reform. We’re for Social Security reform (and how daring Bush has been on that). We’re for tax-code reform. We are the very party of reform, and the other side is the party of an obstinate conservatism that wishes to hang on to a ruinous status quo — pretty much forever. The 2000 campaign proved as well as anything else that the Republican party is today’s progressive party, while the Democrats are the dinosaurs.

Next time someone tries to tell you that the Republican party is anti-reform just because it opposes a McCain-Feingold campaign-finance scheme, just tell ‘im . . . well, on second thought, don’t bother.

The other day, George Will had a column full of generosity toward Joe Lieberman, saying what a moderate he was for his various positions, including on school choice. To toot my own horn a little (or a little more, I should say), I did a piece on the Lieberman phenomenon after the election titled “Orthodox Democrat” (NR, 12/31/00). In it, I went carefully over how Lieberman had shed his old moderate self to become a perfect National Democrat. He did so with a gusto that was breathtaking, even in so cynical a field as politics. I also predicted — this was an easy call — that people would forget, and that Lieberman would put back on his moderate hat, just as nice as you please.

George Will credits Lieberman with being for education reform. And so he was, before 2000. But he backtracked on that, as he did on everything else. He wasn’t quiet and dignified about it. Instead he accused the Republican ticket of “abandoning the public schools.” He did that or worse on Social Security, affirmative action — the whole kit ‘n’ caboodle. The only thing he remained steady on, really, was abortion-on-demand.

One of the most popular headlines of that campaign — and not just in the conservative press — was, “Say It Ain’t So, Joe.” Anyone who is fooled again by him simply wants to be.

Reading Lady Thatcher’s op-ed in the New York Times, I was reminded of why I like her so much. (“Like” is a little mild, but I’m trying to go modest here.) There are many reasons for this liking, but I will note only one: She is a British Conservative who is not ashamed of, defensive about, or snippy concerning America’s place in the world, and Britain’s (new) place. Get a load of this sentence: “Trying to promote civil society and democratic institutions in Afghanistan is best left to others [not to the U.S.] — and since those ‘others’ now include the British, I only hope that we, too, are going to be realistic about what can (and cannot) be achieved.”

Not many British conservatives are like that, let me tell you — even the “pro-American” ones. It takes a special kind of Brit — a big kind of Brit — to be calm about the end of British primacy and appreciative of what America is doing. Listening to Thatcher and those (few) like her, I get the impression that what they care about is principle, and results: They want a nation — a super-powerful one — to stand up for freedom, to combat the world’s lawbreakers, to protect the weak, to keep the peace and stability of the world; and they don’t care particularly which one it is.

Another quick British note: In reading Princess Margaret’s obits, I was struck by a detail about Capt. Townsend. This is the man, of course, whom Margaret was forbidden to marry (though that’s not quite right: She was forbidden to marry him while retaining royal privileges. She chose to retain the privileges. As Townsend wrote so touchingly, “I simply hadn’t the weight to counterbalance all she would have lost” ).

Margaret couldn’t marry Townsend (and remain a full-fledged princess) because he was divorced. But — and this is what I learned, for the first time — Townsend had divorced his wife of eleven years on grounds of adultery. As a historically informed friend of mine pointed out, Queen Victoria used to receive the “innocent party” in such situations (although why I put quotation marks around that phrase, I don’t know).

I’m not sure about you, but I find this fact about the Margaret-Townsend affair poignant.

One more comment I wish to make about the late princess is this: Everyone says (or many say) that it’s a good thing Elizabeth became Queen, and not Margaret, because Elizabeth has been stalwart, while Margaret was conspicuously unsuited. But is that quite right? Margaret might well have adapted herself if she had been the older sister, the one to assume the monarchy. She might well have risen to the occasion. And Elizabeth could have been the dissolute one, having the luxury.

Circumstances, circumstances.

And now for a little good news: A reader sent me a story about a high-school teacher named Christine Pelton, from Piper, Kan. Some students in her biology class cheated on their semester project — so she failed them. Her principal and her superintendent stood by her.

But parents of the tots objected, and complained to the school board — and the school board essentially ordered Pelton to reverse herself and pass the students. Said the teacher, “The students no longer listened to what I had to say. They knew that if they didn’t like something in my classroom from here on out, they could just go to the board and complain.”

So she resigned. (Incidentally, Pelton had required each student in her class to sign the course syllabus, which warned of the consequences of cheating.)

According to the AP story I read, a dozen teachers were planning to leave the school district after what the board did to the brave — even heroic — Christine Pelton.

Well, I know who my Teacher of the Year is. I said at the outset that I had some “good news” for you. That depends on your perspective: The school board is depressing (and utterly representative of today’s education establishment); Christine Pelton is an inspiration.

Give that woman a job.

Last, a story I adore — one that says a lot about a Communist government, and a lot about the United States, too. Folks in a Salt Lake City condominium complex decided to deck their balconies with the flags of the world. One of those flags, of course, was Taiwan’s. So, according to the report in the Deseret News, “Twice, on Wednesday and again the following day, representatives from the Washington embassy of the People’s Republic of China visited Canyon Road Condominiums, on Second Avenue near Memory Grove, asking that the flags come down.” Said a Annette Mower, a resident, “It took a couple of times for them to understand that this is a private residence, not a government building, and that the government did not give us these flags.”

Can you imagine those Communist SOBs marching up to a condominium complex — repeatedly — and demanding the removal of a Taiwanese flag, amid flags from all around the world, in celebration of the Olympic Games? Of course you can — because you know Communism, the totalitarian mindset, which, in China, rules a fifth of the globe’s people.

Our resident, Annetta Mower, said, “We do appreciate their perspective [meaning, the PRC’s], but this is America.”

Oh, yes it is. Still. Thank you, Annetta Mower.