Not for nothing is Phil Gramm my hero — one of them. I’ve always thought of him as a brother of Thomas Sowell. They are both tellers of hard truths. And they are both cusses. I made this comparison in a 2001 piece about Gramm: “Our Splendid Cuss.”
It may not have helped the McCain campaign when Gramm called us a “nation of whiners.” And maybe McCain had to disavow my boy. But it’s nice when there are words apart from politics — particularly when uttered by a politician.
And the thing is: Gramm talked that way even while he held office!
‐Incidentally, I was just Googling around, looking for a news story about Gramm — when I stumbled across a byline from the Asia Times: Muhammad Cohen.
Talk about a fusion candidate!
‐Couple of weeks ago, I had one of the most enjoyable speaking engagements I’ve had in a long while — I spoke to about 250 high-schoolers in the Junior Statesman program. Sort of restored your faith in America, you know? (I exaggerate — slightly.)
First, I was met by a most winning young man — he was waiting for me at the door, wearing a suit and tie. I was not. And the other kids were all dressed up too. The original kid — the greeter/escort/introducer — was a great fan of both politics and music. And many others turned out to be the same way.
The audience was engaged, thoughtful, and eager, and the questions I got were far better — more intelligent, more respectful, and more sincere — than the ones I usually get from adult audiences.
Incidentally, I find one thing, when speaking around the country: When you praise Bush, or defend him against his attackers, people — many of them — are almost embarrassingly grateful you have done so. They are so sick of Bush-bashing, they practically burst when they hear something positive. I’ve had this experience repeatedly — but you have to go first. You have to praise or defend Bush first. Then they’ll respond — come out of the woodwork, so to speak.
Finally, after our session, I met a young lady from Augusta, Ga. Home of the Masters, right? Right — but I said, “Home of Jessye Norman.” And she, smiling, said, “She sang at my grandmother’s wedding.”
You never know . . .
‐Concerning the recent New York Times Magazine piece about Rush Limbaugh, a few observations. (Familiar formulation, isn’t it, WFB fans?) Rush said he feels like he has no rivals — and I immediately thought of Luciano Pavarotti. (I guess I’m singer-minded today.)
Some years ago, I was interviewing a big wheel in the opera world. And I asked about the Pavarotti-Domingo rivalry. He said, “You have to understand, Jay: The rivalry is in Plácido’s mind, and maybe in the minds of some fans. But not in Luciano’s — as far as Luciano is concerned, he has no rivals. He stands alone. Plácido thinks about Luciano; but Luciano never thinks about Plácido.”
That’s being No. 1, y’all.
Point 2: The article said,
Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor at The National Review, watched Limbaugh’s tutelage under Buckley, and he takes Limbaugh seriously as a polemicist and public intellectual. “I hired a lot of people over the years, fancy kids from elite schools, and I always asked, ‘How did you become a conservative?’ Many of them said, ‘Listening to Rush Limbaugh.’ And often they’d add, ‘Behind my parents’ back.’”
I have the highest respect for the author, Zev Chafets (whose book on Israel, Heroes and Hustlers, Hard Hats and Holy Men, had a huge impact on me when it came out in the 1980s). (And he did an excellent job with this Limbaugh piece — I salute the Times for publishing it.) But I never “watched Limbaugh’s tutelage under Buckley.” I might have communicated poorly.
(No remarks from the peanut gallery, please.)
But the bit about the applicants — internship applicants, mainly — is absolutely true. I told Rush about this once, and he said, “Ah, yes — ‘Rush babies.’” There are legions of them, thank heaven.
Point 3: I got a call from a fact-checker at the Times — I’ve received very few calls like that in my career. Fact-checking of that caliber is big-time. The young woman asked about the applicants — and I said, “Yes, yes, it’s true.” But then I found, in the magazine, “The National Review” — when there is no “The,” of course. (All you have to do is look at the cover of any issue.)
National Review is National Review — and The New Republic is The New Republic, The Nation is The Nation, etc. We have no article — no definite article. An important distinction, I believe. WFB did not name his magazine casually. (We are a national review, in a sense, not the — the one and only — national review.) (“National Review” is a more modest name.)
It’s hard to fight “The National Review,” even as it’s hard to fight City Hall. I’ve even had to make this correction in my own workplace — without success . . .
‐Couple of Impromptuses ago, I quoted an Iranian film critic, who was explaining to his audience all about the cunning of the Zionists who run Hollywood: “Names may be selected for their rhyming value. ‘Zion’ sometimes becomes ‘Ryan,’ as in ‘Saving Private Ryan.’ They exploit even the similarity of names.” Sure, sure.
Well, the Middle East Media Research Institute brings us more (here) — from the same, watchful critic, who really has the Zionists’ number:
“[The messages] in a film like ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ are hidden deeper, and it is more sentimental and romantic [than other films], but it strongly defends the Jews and the view that they are oppressed. By the way, this film was directed by Norman Jewison, a Jew.”
Don’t tell me — Norman Jewison is a Jew?
UPDATE: Actually — and amazingly — Norman Jewison is not Jewish. I learned this from readers, whom I thank!
‐When I read the news article that began, “The Bush administration is accusing the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of providing cash and refuge to the militant Islamist group Hezbollah of southern Lebanon,” I had a thought I’ve often had, this decade: “Axis of evil” is not an idle phrase . . .
What do Latin American Marxists and Arab-world Islamofascists have in common? Well, you know — that E-word, for one thing . . .
‐Like a lot of journalists over on the conservative side, I’ve been collecting and quoting Obama gaffes — of which there are many, coming in a steady stream. Recently, talking about how Obama supporters and Hillary supporters must come together for the general, he said, “With just half a wing, this bird can’t fly.”
Um, that expression is, “With just one wing, a bird can’t fly” — the bird is still screwed, with just two half-wings.
Now, I couldn’t care less about these gaffes. Politicians speak millions of words, and they’re bound to slip up every now and then. But when a conservative Republican makes a gaffe — a Quayle, a Reagan, a Ford, a W. — it’s a big, big deal. And why is that so? Well, you know . . .
‐Saw an item about Ken Burns’s next documentary: The National Parks: America’s Best Idea. Doesn’t that title make you damn queasy? I mean, how about political freedom? (I realize we could go back to the Greeks, and before them, too. But what is original, strictly speaking?)
‐Was back home not long ago in Ann Arbor — bête noire of this column — and have a few observations. First of all, I was passing Angell Hall, on the University of Michigan campus. Have passed that building a million times, from infancy on. And had never noticed the inscription high on the façade: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
Whoa, religion and morality? Mankind? Why didn’t the good leftists of Ann Arbor sandblast that off years ago? Maybe they failed to notice it — same as I had. (The inscription comes from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, by the way.)
Give you something else, too: I saw a sort of plaque imbedded in a building, honoring a professor of long ago. Its closing words were, “This tablet is placed here by his colleagues and students in abiding memory of his lovable character and gentle manhood.”
Gentle manhood? Friends, that is, not just from a different age, but from a different planet — one that I think many of us would often like to retreat to. And, by the way, I have known many exhibitors of “gentle manhood” — and they are the best, you may agree.
Something else: While home, I saw a church — a beautiful stone church — and I looked for a sign, telling me what kind of church it was (i.e., to what denomination it belonged). I looked and looked for that sign: and could not find one. Then I figured out why: It is no longer a church, but the offices of lawyers, I believe (or realtors or doctors or some such professionals). (There is a discreet sign toward the side.)
I’m not going to get into this, here and now: but isn’t there something particularly sad about an old, beautiful church — stained-glass windows and all — that is no longer a church but an edifice for run-of-the-mill, daily, secular affairs? Almost better to tear the church down, I’m tempted to think, than to subject it to that fate . . .
Finally, wanna say this: I kid Ann Arbor, a lot (and a lot of it is not kidding). But there is a lot of beauty in that town, and a lot of good. Frankly, I quite like it (but please don’t tell anyone).
‐Just this instant, received some very good news in my inbox — a mass-mailing announcing that Arthur Brooks will be the next president of the American Enterprise Institute. This is a pretty big deal: Being president of AEI is almost like being president of conservatism. And Brooks is a very capable man. I have followed his work for years. He is sensible, imaginative, and unafraid — a very good combo.
So, as I said, this is good news — of which there has been rather a shortage lately, same as with (inexpensive) gas.
‐Care for a little music? How about a lot of music? For a review of a new CD from Simone Dinnerstein, piano, go here. For reviews of CDs from Plácido Domingo (the legendary tenor) and Claudio Abbado (the semi-legendary conductor), go here. For a piece on Horowitz’s last recital (June 1987), now available on CD, go here. And for a review of the New York Philharmonic, under Bramwell Tovey, with James Ehnes, violin, go here.
These pieces were published in the New York Sun.
‐Last, want to tell you a little something. Was flying into New York, in a small plane, at a low altitude. Was a brilliant, sun-streamed day. We flew over New York Harbor, past the Statue of Liberty, etc., and I stared at the southern tip of Manhattan. I’m still not quite used to the towers’ not being there. But, the thing was: I couldn’t figure out where they were. The tip looked seamless, everything interlocking.
But, of course, I still register the towers, mentally, when I look at that part of Manhattan (which is almost always from the air). This is not a plug — I promise — but the cover of my book, my collection from NR, has a picture of Manhattan, including the towers. Some people have asked me why I chose this picture. And I have trouble explaining, in a succinct, crisp way. You kind of understand or you don’t.
Is that a cop-out? Probably, but it’s the best I’m going to do today. Running. I’ll see you. Thanks much.