Okay, let me start with my most partisan and paranoid point. Might as well get that out of the way, right? You know John Edwards? Former senator, former vice-presidential nominee, former presidential candidate? A big deal? Nice hair? He’s facing trial. And it should be a blockbuster trial, with sex, betrayal, and the whole nine yards. Should be a media field day.

I haven’t seen much coverage. I read a little story the other day, which reminded me of the whole affair.

If Edwards were a conservative Republican, instead of a liberal Democrat — would the media be enjoying this more, covering it more, rolling around in it? Making other conservative Republicans comment on it?

Am I the worst paranoid righty you ever saw? Or are there worse?

‐I realize coverage will probably be ample during the trial itself.

‐But for a few tens of thousands of votes in Ohio, John Edwards would have been vice president. Worse, John Kerry would have been president. But sticking with the matter at hand: Would Edwards have gotten his freak on as VP? Or would he have behaved?

‐Every now and then, it’s good to be reminded of the difference between freedom and unfreedom. Let me cite news out of Harare:

“A security guard faces up to 12 months in jail because of remarks on the Zimbabwe president’s health and a taunt over a snack of biscuits and a fruity milk drink, his lawyer said Friday.”

Here’s what happened: “After years of acute shortages of food and confectionary, the guard allegedly told a colleague that President Robert Mugabe ruined the economy and empty store shelves were only restocked by the former opposition party with cookies and soft drinks that his pro-Mugabe colleague ate for lunch.”

That sentence is a little hard to follow, but we get the drift. Here’s the next one: “Attorney Jeremiah Bamu said Friday the guard is charged with ‘undermining the authority’ of Mugabe and goes to court Aug. 12.”

The First Amendment is a rare, rare thing. So’s political freedom. And everyone wants it. Every person? No, of course not. Every people? Oh, yes — no matter what blogging huffers and others try to tell you.

‐Some weeks ago, I interviewed Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, and one of the best political thinkers we have. Not just one of our best politicians — one of our best political thinkers.

I asked him, “Are we going down the tubes?” (No sense dancin’ around.) I will give his answer, in close paraphrase.

We don’t have to. But we will, if we keep going the way we’re going. We have to reverse course. This reversal may be painful. But you know what would be really painful? Financial collapse: hyper-inflation, high interest rates, being dictated to by other countries, and all the rest of it. That would be brutal. Painful beyond belief.

Implement the Ryan plan, or some version of it. It’s not that Draconian. And we have to eat our broccoli — we have to live within our means.

But also: Take steps toward a high-growth economy. How can we grow at 4 percent a year for ten years?

We have to reform our tax system. That will give us a burst of dynamism. Eliminate as many of the deductions, credits, and so on as possible — the things that give power to politicians. Lower rates. Get rid of the capital-gains tax, or reduce it dramatically.

In other words, do the things that promote investment in our country.

No. 2: Develop a domestic energy policy that will give us another burst of economic activity. We spend $400 billion a year on foreign oil. And there’s no economic activity attached to it. No investments, no jobs created in our country.

But we have ample natural-gas and oil resources, perhaps more than any other country in the world. We’re like Rome at the end: seeking resources at the farthest ends of the empire, running all sorts of risks, instead of seeking and reaping closer to home.

And No. 3 — this one is controversial in conservative circles. We have to get our act together on immigration. We have to control our border — stop illegal immigration. That’s not controversial, of course. But this is: We then have to welcome people who can help us.

We’re a country that can absorb people from all over the world. The contract is, basically, “You share our American values, we allow you to pursue your dreams.” This fosters a vibrant, dynamic society.

So, again, control the border — any great country does. Any country worth its salt does. But then recognize that, if we’re going to grow at 4 percent a year, we have to have young, aspiring people to create that dynamism, and we can’t do it with our existing demographics. We have to bring in people who want to pursue their dreams in our country.

I say, everybody with a Ph.D. who isn’t going to blow up our country and believes in our American values? He’s in. Anybody who wants to work hard, who shares our values and is willing to learn English? He’s in.

I think these three things would be a catalytic converter for growth: reform the tax code, get energy security, and have a sensible, robust immigration policy. Plus, eat your broccoli, live within your means. All of this, combined, would put us back on the road to greatness.

‐Remember now that, above, I have been paraphrasing Jeb Bush — without quotation marks, without italics. And, by the way, when Bush was talking about broccoli, I said, “We know how at least one Bush feels about that.” President 41, you recall, said publicly that he didn’t like broccoli. And now that he was all grown up and president, he wasn’t going to eat it. Period.

Jeb observed, “Yeah, he liberated us all on that one.” (But Barbara Bush, you may remember, stuck up for broccoli. I believe she held an event on the White House lawn for broccoli growers. Good politics, and enjoyably American.)

‐I saw a headline: “New Calif. political maps to favor Democrats.” (Article here.) I thought, glumly — maybe even a little bitterly — “Yeah, that’s just what Democrats need in California: another advantage.”

‐Question: If a state votes for lions of early-’70s liberalism, Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, over such forward thinkers as Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina — not to mention those challengers’ entrepreneurial credentials — doesn’t the state kind of deserve what it gets? If, when economic disaster looms, Californians turn to those economic wizards Brown and Boxer — what can you do with them?

And they did this, Californians did, in like the biggest Republican, anti-socialist year ever!

‐Readers of National Review and National Review Online are well acquainted with the Progress party of Norway. It is just about my favorite party in the whole wide world. I wrote about it for the magazine last year: “Among the Progs: A peek at the conservatives and libertarians of Norway.” And I have talked about these “Progs” in my column more than once. I consider myself an honorary Prog — have some of the party’s paraphernalia, such as a lapel pin.

The Progress party is indeed a classical-liberal party: a Reaganite party, a Thatcherite party. Its leader, Siv Jensen, has been called the Margaret Thatcher of Norway. When you meet her, and listen to her, you know that the designation is not at all inapt.

Daniel Johnson, editor of Standpoint in Britain, interviewed her in 2008. And for that same magazine, Standpoint, Bruce Bawer wrote an article about her. Both the interview and the article can be found at this link. They will repay your time.

So will this: James Kirchick has written about Progress for The Weekly Standard, here. Why now? The party is, of course, being blamed for the recent mass murder in Norway. That man’s killings constitute probably the worst thing that has happened to that country since the Nazis invaded in April 1940.

Jamie says exactly what needs to be said, for which I’m grateful.

‐You know good ’n’ well I won’t miss an opportunity to tout my friend Ted Cruz, the Senate candidate in Texas. His latest endorsement — there has been a slew of them recently, as I’ve noted — is from Sen. Pat Toomey, one of the brightest lights in all of conservativedom. He said,

“I am enthusiastically supporting Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate because Ted is a free-market warrior, a champion for limited government and economic liberty.

“America is facing a grave fiscal and economic crisis, because far too many politicians in Washington, D.C., have spent more and more money, exploding our federal spending, debt, and deficit. Ted Cruz is a national leader fighting to limit the size, scope, and power of the federal government. He is exactly the kind of conservative fighter we need in Washington to help defend our free-market economy.”

Hear, hear. Cruz: Now More Than Ever.

‐Finally, care for a little language — and a little Americana, to go with it? A reader writes — I forget what prompted his letter –

Jay,
I’m geezer-qualified enough to remember when my breakfast-cereal bowl contained CheeriOats — 1941. By 1945, they were called Cheerios. You could look it up.

Among the delights of that missive is the phrase “geezer-qualified.” Our language can do anything, can’t it? See you!

#JAYBOOK#