As regular readers know, I’m not a critic of President Obama’s golf habit — of his liking for the game, and indulgence in it. Quite the opposite. In January, after he had taken some heat for his golf-playing ways, I wrote an essay for National Review called “Hail to the Golfer-in-Chief.” Find it here. President Bush (43) stopped playing golf in 2003, because he didn’t like the way it looked, with war going on in Iraq. I criticized him for this choice. The way I put it in that recent piece was,

The president’s motivation was perfectly honorable and understandable, obviously. But it was a shame that the weird stigma about golf had to be bowed to. Bush did not deny himself recreation altogether: He rode his mountain bike a lot, in those bright, huggy shorts. But golf, somehow, was too unseemly to be engaged in. Biking’s okay, basketball’s okay [that is another Obama pastime] — golf is risky. Why? For no good reason, only because of the strange psychology with which some people are saddled.

What am I building up to? Why am I rehashing all this? It was noted in the press that, when Obama couldn’t attend the state funeral in Poland, owing to the Icelandic volcano, he spent the day playing golf. This looked a little crass. I’m a big defender of Obama’s golf, but that particular round was quite unwise. I know that Bush is supposed to be a big clod — terribly insensitive to foreigners, for one thing — and that Obama is supposed to be refinement itself, but Bush wouldn’t have played golf on the day of that funeral. He would have known that it would send wrong signals. I’m sorry, Obama fans, and Bush-haters, but it’s just true. And partisanship — what we think of health-care policy, for example — has nothing to do with it. ‐Here is GWB in his second inaugural address, a speech hated by many conservatives, and hated by most everybody on the left, of course — because it was delivered by Bush:

The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. . . . We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. . . . We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. . . . All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

By the way, I loved hearing Tony Blair at Davos, days after that inaugural address. He said that Bush’s speech was taken as “evidence of the ‘neoconservative’ grip on Washington.” But “I thought progressives were all in favor of freedom over tyranny.” Couple of days ago, I noticed an Associated Press report that began, “President Barack Obama has dramatically cut funds to promote democracy in Egypt, a shift that could affect everything from anti-corruption programs to the monitoring of elections.” The head of an election-monitoring group was quoted as saying, “Obama wants change that won’t make the Egyptian government angry. And in the Egyptian context, that means there will be no change.” The article also quoted a Freedom House report, which said that the democracy cuts in Egypt are “of particular concern as the environment there becomes increasingly restricted — as evidenced by recent crackdowns against political activists, bloggers, and journalists.” Here in Impromptus, we have monitored some of that cracking down over the past few months. Finally, the AP quoted the director of the Egyptian Center for Human Rights, who said, “Obama wants to democratize the region the way the leaders of the Arab countries want, not the way the Arab people want.” That is so disheartening, and, to me, disgusting. But hey: It’s also un-Bush, you know? And that’s the important thing. ‐Care for a letter from Oklahoma City? And this has nothing to do with the terror-bombing, I’m happy to say:

Jay, Greetings from the Plains. I was telling this story to someone the other day and thought I should send it to you, because it concerns two of our favorite things: ice cream and music. (In fact, if it had a golf angle it might be The Perfect Story.) [Well observed.] To set up this story, I must first tell you that there is a chain of restaurants in Oklahoma and surrounding states called Braum’s Ice Cream and Dairy Stores — or “Braum’s” for short. They make great ice cream, shakes, and sundaes, and, if you want, you can get a burger and fries as a side. [I love the notion of a burger and fries as “a side.”] Well, earlier this season our Oklahoma City Philharmonic was playing a Brahms symphony and the conductor, Joel Levine, told a story about one of the first concerts he gave after he moved to Oklahoma. It was a children’s concert, on which he conducted a Brahms piece, and, before he began, he asked the kids if any of them had ever heard of Brahms. When all of them raised their hands he was really impressed with the knowledge of this young audience. When Levine mentioned this after the concert, an orchestra member had to inform him that most of the children were raising their hands because they had heard “Braum’s,” not “Brahms.”

Beautiful. Three cheers for both — Brahms and Braum’s. And I’ll see you soon.

#JAYBOOK#