Naipaul, campus thugs, CNN’s defender, &c.

March 6, 2002 8:50 a.m.

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.