A gutsy George Bush, a gutsy Bill Clinton (?), a gutsy Jose Napoleon Duarte, &c.

July 23, 2001 9:10 a.m.

f you’re like me — and Lord help you if you are — you gotta love the way Bush comports himself in Europe. First, he puts the “protesters” — these malevolent goons — in their place, refusing to grant them any idealism, any humane motive. “It’s a tragic loss of life,” Bush said, referring to the dead Italian, but the rabble-rousers who “claim to represent the voices of the poor aren’t doing so. Those protesters who try to shut down our talks on trade and aid don’t represent the poor, as far as I’m concerned.” This is rare “straight talk” (remember that phrase?) from a politician, especially one participating in an international summit. Shortly after, Jacques Chirac chimed in, with a comment as typical (for him) as Bush’s: “Obviously, we have all been traumatized by the events.” No, we haven’t: We have been outraged, as W. apparently was.

Then, there is the coolly, and defiantly, American George Bush: so unapologetic, so uncringing about his country and the policies that are best for it. He is polite and deferential, when appropriate — during the campaign, he laid great stress on “humility” in foreign policy. But he is very far from a marshmallow.

In this, he reminds me of his father, and since conservatives are usually sniping at dear ol’ Dad, let me say something positive about him: He is responsible for one of the most satisfying moments I have ever seen in politics. At least, it was deeply satisfying to me, making a deep impression — at a time when I was ripe for deep impressions, politically.

The moment took place in the 1984 vice-presidential debate between Bush — the incumbent vice president — and Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic nominee. At one point, toward the end of the debate — it may even have been in his closing statement — Bush said (approximately), “I can’t tell you what a joy it is to serve with a president who will not apologize for the United States of America.” The camera showed Ferraro with a dramatic quizzical expression on her face. It was glorious.

Most of us knew just what Bush meant, of course: that Reagan felt — knew — the U.S. to be a force for good in the world, contrary to what had been said so loudly for the past couple of decades. The opinion of world elites meant nothing, or little, to him. He forged ahead with what he thought — knew — to be right, and the world, of course, was eventually grateful: although the elites remained disdainful and put-out.

Something else has reminded me of the “old days” (of the 1980s): Tom Daschle’s attack on W. as the president was taking off to Europe. The Democratic leader chided him for making Continental types so uncomfortable. This was a typical Democratic performance, and — typically — it galled me. I was not so much disturbed by a Senate leader’s “undermining” the president; in fact, I wasn’t disturbed by that at all. No, I was disturbed by Daschle’s very wrongness, on the substance of the thing: Bush is looking out for American interests, and looking out for those interests doesn’t always coincide with making European (or other) elites happy; in fact, it is often at cross-purposes with it.

In this, I was reminded of why I became a Republican in the first place. One of the reasons for my conversion, or migration, was that the Democrats were always terribly fretful about what the world thought of the U.S. (which is to say, what the world Left thought); Republicans, meanwhile, were justly confident about their country, and justly unmoved by illogical criticisms. It wasn’t the Republicans’ “patriotism” that impressed me; nothing of the sort. No, it was their simple correctness — the justice of their position.

(We take a break from this column for a bit of self-promotion: I once wrote an essay on this general theme, which was republished on NRO and can be found here — for those who have more time to kill than they should.)

I also want to put in a good word for Clinton (yes, you read that in this space — now kindly pick yourself off the floor and continue): The only time I was ever proud of him — yes, I was proud of Clinton, once — was when he was in Canada, sometime during his second term. He was giving a press conference, standing next to the Canadian premier, I believe, and he was being absolutely hammered by the North Country media for refusing to relent on landmines — for continuing to insist on the desirability and morality of using them in a certain strategic way. Clinton unshakably stood his ground, explaining that the use of those awful devices was absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of American troops, for example in Korea — and he would not back down on that, no matter how much the world screamed.

I found this thrilling — and this was the first and last time I was ever thrilled (positively) by Clinton. It was the only time I can remember saying, “Yes, sir, that’s my president.” I suppose that nothing stirs my blood like an American president’s steadfastness on foreign soil.

One last thing, before I leave this: W. said, alluding to Daschle’s attack on him, “One of the things America has prided itself on is a bipartisan foreign policy, and I would hope that that tradition continues. It’s a very important tradition.” This is about half baloney, of course: Republicans and Democrats have hammered at each other constantly over foreign policy for a very long time. The idea of a bipartisan foreign policy — of politics “stopping at the water’s edge” — is bunk, although it might be lovely bunk. During the 1980s, Republicans and Democrats had almost violently opposing ideas, over Central America, for example. They have practically killed each other over foreign policy since at least mid-Vietnam.

Again, I don’t mind so much that the Democrats tangle with a Republican president over foreign policy, even as he is about to skip across the pond: I mind that — on missile defense and Kyoto, for instance — the Democrats are wrong.

Last week, a group of conservatives got together, and the question of the hour was, “What are the high points and the low points of the W. presidency, six months in?” The answers varied, and I will relate mine, three from each category:

Low points (conservatives, of course, always begin with the dark side, usually managing to end with it, too): The education bill, a Ted Kennedyesque disgrace, violating the principles for which Bush has long stood (and on which he campaigned, vigorously and well). The line in the China-apology letter that read, “Thank you for looking after the well-being of our crew.” Not only was this craven and absurd — what, we should thank them for not torturing or killing our people? — it was untrue: The Chinese, we know, used some very rough, certainly uncivilized, interrogation techniques. And third, a general failure to communicate effectively, to articulate and defend administration positions — which may include going after opponents, in a gentle, Bushian, “change the tone” way.

And the high points? Personnel, personnel, personnel. Oh, yes. Aside from some sterling Cabinet picks, think merely of some key foreign-policy slots: Elliott Abrams at the NSC, Otto Reich for assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, John Negroponte for U.N. ambassador. Not bad, not bad — and those are just for starters. Then: The fact that Bush is charging ahead on missile defense, something vital for the country, and world, something to which there is tremendous, ferocious, and unprincipled opposition, and something that may prove (along with Social Security reform, I hope — a new New Deal) to be Bush’s “legacy.” And last: The simple fact that George W. Bush is an honest, trustworthy, straight chief executive. This should go without saying. But we know, sadly, that it doesn’t.

I mentioned, a second ago, Otto Reich — whose nomination battle I have studied and reported on. One of the shots against him was an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times by Oscar Arias, ginned up, in all probability, by Reich’s Democratic opponents. Arias, of course, is the ex-president of Costa Rica who won the Nobel Peace Prize — a prize obviously awarded to embarrass and hinder Reagan and his allies in Central America. In the op-ed piece, Arias claimed — against all evidence, against all reason — that Reich is a “militarist,” unworthy of the post for which he has been nominated.

Well, another ex-president of Costa Rica has now weighed in, this one Rafael Calderon, this one emphatically, and reasonably, on the side of Reich. (The column appeared in the Washington Times.) Calderon says a great deal about why Reich should be confirmed, about why he would perform admirably as assistant secretary, and it is a fine contribution to the debate. Was this column ginned up by Reich’s Republican allies? Probably — but that wouldn't make it any less sound.

You recall that I spoke, above, of an extremely satisfying moment in politics? I thought of another one a few days ago, in pondering what has become of Central America. All five countries in the region are now democratic — and that result was far from sure, back in the ’80s, when Americans had their great civil war over Central American policy. My memory was of Jose Napoleon Duarte, the (democratic) president of El Salvador, participating in a ceremony in the Rose Garden — and leaving the podium to kiss the flag of the United States. It was one of the most striking things I had ever seen. He was thanking the U.S. administration, and Reagan’s supporters in Congress, and in the population at large, for backing democracy in El Salvador, for demonstrating the will and providing the means to fight off both the Communists and the right-wingers.

To make matters all the more poignant, Duarte was dying.

I couldn’t, for the life of me, figure out how those who had damned the U.S. as a force for ill in El Salvador, advocating an American pullout — no aid — could have witnessed that scene and not been ashamed.

The proof is in the pudding: Reagan and his men, by standing firm in Central America, against the wild screams and accusations of the Left, both soft and hard, contributed to the not-at-all-likely democratic condition of the region today.

Paul Gigot, a veteran columnist and editorialist for the Wall Street Journal, was recently named editorial-page editor of that paper, which is wonderful news: Few are as capable. (I should mention also, with a touch of hometown pride, that Gigot is an alumnus of NR.) I’m somewhat sad about this development, however, because Gigot’s elevation means that he will give up his column, “Potomac Watch,” which is one of the best in the business.

One reaction I had — I don’t know why it came to me; it was unbidden, really — was, “Hell, Gigot should have a column on the op-ed page of the New York Times.” It would do a world of good there. Sure, he will do much good in his new position, too, if only because he will continue the ample good that his predecessor, Bob Bartley, has already done. But the Times op-ed page could really use a gust of fresh air — even a gentle breeze of it — and Gigot would do the job.

This brings up the general question of, What are we to do about the most important (I would argue) op-ed page in the world? The answer is, “Nothing,” of course, but this is merely parlor game-ish. The page has but a single conservative on it, William Safire, and he has been there for about 30 years. He does not exactly “hold up our end,” from a conservative point of view. He is a brilliant and invaluable man, but — strange for a 30-year columnist — he likes to do a lot of reporting, when his column could be used for advocacy, explaining, opining, philosophizing, convincing. In any case, Safire should not be alone. The Washington Post — no bosom friend of the American Right — is leaps and bounds ahead of the Times, when it comes to a diversity of opinion on the op-ed page. The Times has several lefty regulars who really make one another redundant (I know, I know — National Review should talk; but we’re an opinion magazine, and website).

I will end as I began: It’s nice that Paul Gigot has been promoted. But wouldn’t it be nice — nicer — if he could take his column to the august pages of the New York Times? If you have a moment, you may wish to think who would be your own candidates to be the paper’s Token No. 2 — or 3, if you really want to dream.

One of the things wrong with the Times op-ed page, of course, is that it no longer has A. M. Rosenthal, the old executive editor. I was reminded of this absence, this loss, by Rosenthal’s recent column on the Beijing Olympics, published in the New York Daily News, which is his new home. Rosenthal’s column is possibly the best yet written on the International Olympic Committee’s tragic choice: Drink it in. The man may no longer be kicking on the op-ed page of his old paper, but he is still kicking, and hard. Very hard.

I am bursting with things to say about the Chinese Communists, but I will confine myself to noting an excellent article by Frank Ching in the South China Morning Post, which reports, among other things, that the PRC has changed the name of its Propaganda Department to “Publicity Department,” but for the benefit of English-speakers only. (Remember when Saddam Hussein had his people at some weapons factory wear coats that said on the back, in English, “Baby Milk Factory” or something?) Beijing is cracking down viciously on the Chinese press, as it has cracked down on the heads of the Falun Gong, and everyone else who wants to live a life worth living. Now the Chinese papers are forbidden to report on even such things as natural disasters.

Optimists about the Beijing Olympics say that the Games will mean “The Whole World is Watching.” Bullsh**: The world won’t watch, and if it does, and sees something, it will turn away, because nothing can be allowed to spoil the harmony of the Olympic Games. The regime will have greater leeway than usual to do its worst (which is very bad, indeed). Be it on the heads of those who appeased them with the plum of — you could argue — the world’s most cherished and important international event.

Before I continue, a quick language point: “Propaganda” should not be a bad, a negative, word; you can propagate the truth, you can propagate the false; the manifestations of that propagating are “propaganda.” But the word has come, of course, to be taken in the negative: false propaganda.

I should, at this stage, refuse to be heartsick over anything I read in the news, but I was almost embarrassingly heartsick over the report saying that a group complaining of “blast faxes” had been awarded, in a class-action suit, 12 million dollars. A Hooters franchise in Augusta, G-A, had sent a couple coupons via faxes to various businesses and individuals, apparently. One man — a beaut named Sam G. Nicholson — got it in mind to sue, class-action-style. There is an obscure federal law prohibiting commercial faxes without the consent of the recipient: so, the restaurant must pay 12 mil.

Now, I all the time receive unsolicited commercial phone calls and e-mails (I haven’t much noticed faxes), and they annoy me a great deal — but they do not make me want to sue, because such a desire would be ridiculous. As this award is, in addition to being obscene. Tort reform can’t come soon enough, because it would be easier to accomplish than a reformation of the American character — although the first cause might help the latter.

May I tell you what I dislike about the new John Adams wave, and the commentary surrounding it? I don’t like the either-or-ness of this chatter. You are either an Adams man or a Jefferson man, you can’t be both. When you tout the virtues of one, you have to tout the demerits of the other. And that really need not be. For years, you had to choose between Rubinstein and Horowitz — ridiculous: They were markedly different one from the other, and each had much to offer; a sensible person could never have done without either. The same with Pavarotti-Domingo: Certain strange people demand that a choice be made; but you might as well forgo either chocolate or vanilla. We are supposed to be either a “dog person” or a “cat person” — yet what appreciative person could fail to discern the delights of both?

Praise John Adams if you like — say that he has never gotten his due, that it’s about time, or whatever — but there is no need to run down Jefferson while you do it.

One of the things, I remember, that irked me when the first Bush came to power was that a great many in the media decided to praise Barbara Bush: but only in comparison with that horrid shrew Nancy Reagan. No one — no one in the elite press — could say a kind word about Barbara without saying a concomitantly nasty one about Nancy. My point was: If you like Barbara Bush, just say so. But of course, the accompanying slam provided cover of a sort.

Is it wrong of me to be disturbed, ever so slightly, by the appointment of Bill Richardson as president of Freedom House? Probably. Freedom House, to remind you, is one of the most valuable organizations in the country, or world, a group dedicated to looking after democracy and human rights around the globe. During the Cold War, it was particularly valuable, because larger, more prominent organizations — meaning, primarily, Amnesty International — tended to look away from the Communist countries, in the interest of “détente” or whatever.

Richardson, of course, was Clinton’s ambassador to the U.N., then energy secretary; before that, he was a New Mexico congressman, semi-famous for globetrotting and grandstanding. Under Clinton, he was always eager to do the president’s bidding, even to the point of offering a hopelessly unqualified Monica Lewinsky a choice U.N. job (aren’t they all choice?); the ex-intern, feeling sure that she could be ultra-persnickety, turned up her nose at the offer. A hugely — indeed, nakedly — ambitious man, Richardson was hoping very much to be Al Gore’s vice-presidential nominee, until a mini-scandal erupted over security at nuclear labs — and then he was cooked. Some good came out of his ambition, however: He had gone on a strenuous diet, slimming down for the vice-presidential call that never came.

Now, I realize that Freedom House is a bipartisan, indeed, non-partisan, group, and that Richardson is far, far from the worst of the Democrats, when it comes to seeing the world clear. But I am still — ever so slightly — chagrined. The best that can be said about this appointment is that perhaps Bill Richardson’s enormous appetite for publicity will wind up aiding the organization — long may it live.

You have possibly seen the movie Before Night Falls, the story of a homosexual Cuban poet, Reynaldo Arenas, who endured persecution at the hands of Castro and his Communist system. The movie has been picketed by pro-Castro leftists in the U.S., who hate what the movie exposes about the nature of their favorite regime. The movie has clearly done some good. I relate the following anecdote: A longtime anti-Communist, knowledgeable about Cuba, went to see Before Night Falls at a theater in a gay neighborhood. When the movie was finished, he overheard a gay couple, leaving the theater: Said one to the other, “It’s just like Nazi Germany. I had no idea!”

Well, Castro has been in power for over 40 years, and the nature and practices of his regime have been no secret, for those who cared to find out: but better late than never.

Speaking of movies, there is a new one about Sadat, playing in Egypt, and it is controversial, because it portrays the late leader in a positive light. Some Egyptians — most? — regard Sadat as a despicable traitor for striving for peace with Israel. I remember — moving on to another point — that there was a film made about Sadat in the United States, starring Lou Gossett Jr. Some Egyptians reacted with fury, because Gossett was (is) black. Sadat himself, of course, was half-black — his mother was Sudanese — a point that many (not excluding Anwar el-Sadat) sought to obscure.

Reading about the new movie put me in mind of Sadat, and his assassination, and the gross aftermath. I have always remembered a line in a Bill Buckley column about Sadat and Nasser: After Sadat’s assassination, there was dancing, jubilation, in the Egyptian streets; and after Nasser died, “they went mad with grief.”

Hang on, I am going to reprint the entire paragraph, with its killer, unforgettable (to me) closing line:

“Nasser was a cruel man, a despicable fomenter of hatred. He cared about war and about the destruction of Israel. He thought nothing of wooing Moscow, never mind communism’s explicit hostility to any kind of religion. His radio stations blared out the need for a holy war against Israel…. He knew…how to behave when kings and queens drop in for tea. But he stood for war, for absolute despotism at home, and for the consecration of Mohammed to the cause of anti-Semitism. And when he died, the Egyptian people went mad with grief.”

Fantastic, huh? This column — written in October 1981, following Sadat’s assassination — was reprinted in the Buckley anthology Right Reason.

So, you need another reason to be irked at Sen. Joe Lieberman, the half-Maimonides, half-Shrum of the Democratic party? Responding to Democratic displeasure at his alleged leniency about military ballots, he said, “I feel badly.” Well, I feel bad for you, Joe — not really.

A quick report on the mailbag: Many, many readers said, in reaction to my item about the reprehensible treatment of eager, bright-eyed immigrants by INS personnel, “Me too, me too” — they had witnessed the same.

Also — on an issue of burning importance — there is indeed a regulation (or statute) requiring that restaurants post signs in their bathrooms saying, “Employees Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work.” And, yes, according to testimony, workers find this humiliating. In addition, one reader wrote, “Your item reminds me of a cartoon I saw more than twenty years ago, which for some reason I continue to think of as one of the funniest I have ever read. A large, surly-looking man in lederhosen stands next to a bathroom sink, with a towel over his arm. The sign on the wall reads, ‘Hans must wash employees before leaving.’”

I will close with a tale from ol’ West Virginny, home of my in-laws. Now, one of my wife’s grandfathers is a fierce, devoted, yellower-than-yellow-dog Democrat, and he loves to rib me about my membership in the Republican party — something he regards with horror. He told me a story the other day — true, of course, like all of his stories: Two young men, having just turned 18, go down to the county seat (Wellsburg) to register to vote. One of them registers Democrat; the other tries to register Republican — but the clerk won’t let him! She says that the young man has to go home to get his parents’ permission. And what are the chances of getting such permission in that wild, wonderful state?

To paraphrase New York gossipeuse Cindy Adams, Only in West Virginia, kids, only in West Virginia.