Last year, during the presidential campaign, John Kerry kept talking about Karl Rove–how Rove was the weaver of all evil, etc. This was four years after the ’04 election, mind you. And I heard someone say, “Karl’s still in his head.” Well, Rush Limbaugh seems to be in the “head” of many a person–including the president of the United States. Colin Powell and others have singled him out too.

If that’s not proof that Rush is the Leader of the Opposition (as National Review once dubbed him), nothing is.

“Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh,” say the Obamas and the Powells and some other people. They are giving “free advice” to the Republicans. Well, since when has the GOP listened to Rush? If it did, we would not have nominated Senator McCain last year (for all his virtues, which are considerable). Moreover, Rush did not ask for many of the policies of the Bush administration, particularly in the domestic realm.

Rush says what he regards as true, political consequences be damned. He is not a party strategist, or a party anything. He’s a man with opinions, and they are sound, and that’s why so many people are drawn to him, and them.

Keep it up, Rush–and stay “in their heads.”

‐A reader wrote me, citing the now-famous, or semi-famous, nugget from the new White House website: “President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur. President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina [as a senator]. Citing the Bush Administration’s ‘unconscionable ineptitude’ in responding to Hurricane Katrina,” etc. Then our reader commented, “Isn’t there a psychological term for people who have to promote their superiority by cutting down others?” I guess so, because there’s a psychological term for (nearly) everything. And that was what was chiefly wrong with Obama’s inaugural address, in my opinion: his apparent need to put down Bush, in order to puff himself and his supporters up. (I wrote about this at some length in the Corner, and will not repeat myself–too much–here.) ‐The question was raised in our office late last week, “How long will the Obama administration be able to blame George Bush for every problem under the sun?” And the answer is, Indefinitely–because the media will permit it, and abet it: participate in it (given that so many in the media share the worldview and attitudes and style of the new administration). Is that too dark and cynical a view? Well, I hope so. Maybe we should revisit this subject at regular intervals. ‐I wonder if you saw this lead sentence of a Washington Post article–a sentence that should enter the annals of political-reporting history: “Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of ‘petty grievances,’ President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.”

Yep, that’s right: As a reader of ours put it, either bow–bow immediately–to a new New Deal, or be the harborer and inflicter of petty grievances. How nice! (To heck with this democracy business, and this republicanism business.)

‐In response to Republican criticisms or questions, President Obama has been saying, “I won,” and leading Democrats (e.g., Speaker Pelosi) have been saying, “We won.” True. But if conservative Republicans responded in kind, following their victories–would the world like it much? (And by “world,” I mean . . . you know: the Today show, to use a convenient shorthand.)

‐That said, I must admit that one of my favorite bumper stickers of all time appeared shortly after the midterm elections in 1994: “Speaker Newt: Deal with it.” To understand the power of that sticker, you must have known the temper of the times. It is hard to recapture at this remove: Gingrich was so abominated and fringe a figure–and here he was going to be Speaker of the House! It was astonishing, and, for Reagan-type conservatives, exhilarating. (Same with the election of Reagan in ’80.) I have seldom witnessed such giddiness.

Remember, too, that Republicans had not been a majority in the House since 1955–that was 40 years. Many of us thought we would never see a Republican majority in the House, ever. We said, “There’s more turnover in the Supreme Soviet than in the House of Representatives,” which was true. It was just a freaky-deaky year, 1994.

But enough strolling down Memory Lane . . . (You know how backward-looking conservatives are!)

‐Some say, The parties are Tweedledum and Tweedledee–not much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. You especially hear this from real lefties and real righties. But significant differences there are–very significant. For example, the new president has nixed the “Mexico City policy.” As the Associated Press put it, before he did it, “President Barack Obama will sign an executive order Friday ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortion.” And it is done.

Yes, elections matter, a lot–at least they often do. I recommend that you let no one tell you otherwise.

‐A little language–presidential language? The first time I heard the term “heavy lift,” it was in the Oval Office, from the mouth of George W. Bush. “The world doesn’t like a heavy lift,” he said. “And this is a heavy lift.” He was referring to the War on Terror, and to the Iraq War, more specifically. I thought it might be a West Texas expression. I have not heard it since–except from me, when quoting Bush.

I was therefore astonished to read this, from the AP: “President Barack Obama urged lawmakers from both parties Friday to back his economic stimulus package, saying the economy’s dire problems require congressional action even if some members object to portions of the plan. ‘I know that it is a heavy lift to do something as substantial as we’re doing right now,’ Obama said . . .”

Geez.

‐Somewhat to my surprise, I received several letters on a single theme, and I offer a couple of them to you here.

Jay,
I was listening to NPR, on the principle of “Know thine enemy,” and I couldn’t help noticing two things: First, each announcer without fail referred to “President Obama.” The same announcers almost invariably called President Bush, when he was president, “Mr. Bush,” “Bush,” or “George Bush.” Almost never did I hear them say “President Bush.” Second, the tone with which they said “President Obama” was one of clear reverence. In contrast, you could always visualize the sneering when they spoke of 43.

Well, now they’ll be more like government radio than ever! (They have the White House, both houses of Congress, and before long the Court should tip to them, too.)

And a second letter:

Jay,
In your 1/23 Impromptus, you quote readers referring to the former president as “your George W. Bush” and “your president.” Barack Obama has been president for only three days, and yet I have been calling him “President Obama” and “the president” without much thought. Over the last eight years, though, liberal relatives, friends, and acquaintances–I live and work in Manhattan–have rarely referred to George W. Bush as anything other than “your president” and “Bush” (refusing to include “President” before “Bush”).

Yepperz.

‐A missive from a reader serving in Iraq:

Jay,
I was returning from leave and was transiting Kuwait the day of the inauguration, so thankfully I missed most of the hoopla. I did happen to glance at a TV and saw someone from the Today show interviewing someone who had attended the festivities. The person was holding a banner that read, “What a Country!”
All I could think was that some of us have always felt that way.

‐I saw a headline from Reuters about two weeks ago: “Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism.” This is serious business. The men in Guantanamo aren’t choirboys, you know. They aren’t victims of Texas injustice. They are dead set on killing you and me–even the editors of Mother Jones (to use a shorthand). They do not discriminate against Left and Right in America (which is something about which Michael Moore expressed dismay on September 11). (Remember when he lamented that the terrorists weren’t confining their attacks to pro-Bush population centers?)

In his first days in office, President Obama has done some very popular things: closing down Gitmo, softening our interrogation techniques, and so on. (At least he has pledged to do so.) Fine, fine. The world says, “Hurray!”

But to what extent were Bush’s policies and practices responsible for saving innocent lives? And will the undoing of those policies and practices wind up costing innocent lives? These are very, very discomforting questions, but they need to be confronted. President Bush and his people liked to say, “You never get credit for what didn’t happen.” True. It’s like preemption: Nobody likes a preemptor, really. (Well, I do.) It is essentially a thankless task. There are always people who say, “Oh, no harm would have come, without your preemption.”

You sure about that?

‐In recent weeks, I’ve been writing–in this column and the Corner–about “safe zones.” By that I mean, zones free from partisan politics. You would think that concerts would be one such zone–but no. In my work as a music critic, I attend many recitals, concerts, and operas. (This is in New York.) And it seems like about half of these events include anti-Bush remarks from the stage. There is simply no refuge (not now, anyway).

At the Marilyn Horne gala in Carnegie Hall the other day, Frederica von Stade–serving as co-host of the affair–made a pro-Democratic statement, and then did some weird, crazed fist pump. The audience went berserk, of course. It wasn’t exactly Nuremberg–but there was an unsettling uniformity. (Although one attendee–a reader of NRO–actually booed. And he was congratulated and thanked by some other audience members later.) And on Friday night, I went to a string-quartet concert. What can happen at a string-quartet concert, right?

Well, the composer of a new piece came on to talk about that piece. He said that he was asked to write something optimistic and lighthearted. But this was difficult, in 2007, because these were such dark, terrible days, you see. “You remember that time,” he said (I paraphrase)–“before three days ago” (meaning, before the inauguration of Barack Obama). The entire hall chuckled, laughed, and cheered. There was a North Korean-style uniformity. The herd was galloping in its typical unison.

Well, I’ve received a ton of mail on this subject–safe zones, and the lack of them–and I should really devote another column to it. Maybe two of them. But have just one letter now–something positive:

Jay,
I’m from Indiana and am a staunch conservative. I go to church with a bunch of “hippies” (young, latte drinking, most of them white, left-leaning). My associate pastor is a “hippie” pacifist (only 25, though, so he may see the light yet): organizing anti-war rallies and the like. However, to his credit, he works diligently to leave politics out of his sermons. I know his views, and he can voice them strongly in other settings, but he understands that the pulpit is not the place for that, even if a lot of the congregation would agree with him. . . . I am forever grateful for his effort to keep church a “safe zone.”

I admire his restraint, too: and I wish he were the norm. I suspect he’s not.

By the way, I liked something underneath this woman’s letter–the reader’s letter. It said, “DISCLAIMER: I apologize for any typos in the above e-mail. Because of my infant, I am often forced to type with one hand.”

‐It’s hard to know when to panic. In other words, what is the right time to panic? A tricky question. Panic too soon, and you’re just foolish. Panic too late, and–well, it’s too late.

For several years now, we’ve been hearing rumbles about Europe, and they are getting louder. I was forcefully impressed by a piece by Douglas Davis in the current Spectator (subscription required, I’m afraid). It begins,

At my dinner table on Friday night, a holocaust survivor admits that she is trying to persuade her son to take his family out of Europe to America, Canada, Australia, Israel . . . ‘They say they can’t leave me, but I tell them: “Go, get out. My parents left my grandparents behind in Berlin and brought me to safety in England. Now I want you to leave so that my grandchildren will be safe.”’ There is an unbearable desperation in her plea. But she has a point. As tens of thousands of demonstrators march through the streets of Europe, the chants are modified but the message remains substantially intact: ‘Hamas, Hamas, Hamas–Jews to the Gas’. Or, more simply: ‘Death to the Jews’. Many European Jews, even well-established, affluent Jews, have been checking the suitcase they keep packed under the bed. They have been here before and many are (albeit reluctantly) reading the writing on the wall.

Then Davis continues in a personal vein:

To some extent I thought I was inured. I grew up in postwar apartheid South Africa where a subtle undercurrent of anti-Semitism was a fact of everyday life. So while I was disturbed by manifestations of mob anti-Semitism, I was also less vulnerable to shock. That’s just how people are. Living in genteel, leafy Hampstead Garden Suburb provides an additional layer of protection from such crass outbursts. But my sanguine state ends abruptly when I am out walking on Saturday. A hundred yards from my front door, I encounter the slogan, freshly painted in yellow, across the pavement: ‘Kill the Filthy Jews’. I am shocked. And shocked that I am shocked. The message is too close for comfort. The leafy gentility is, after all, an illusion. Those who study these matters tell me that the current convulsion of anti-Semitism is the worst in a generation.

And so on. When is it too soon, if not to panic, to sound the alarm? Is now too soon?

‐Evo Morales, the hard-Left president of Bolivia, gives a typical feverish speech. And the American ambassador–or the closest thing we have to an ambassador there (since Morales expelled our ambassador)–walks out. I thought that was kind of neat. To see an article on the matter, go here.

‐This is kind of interesting: A reader of ours spots an error in a major newspaper. The newspaper is saying that President Bush “banned stem-cell research” (because everybody says that). The reader writes to the reporter, saying, “I don’t think this is true. Are you sure about the accuracy of that?” And the reporter–who responds, to his credit–says, in essence, “Go start a blog.”

Priceless!

‐A New Yorker I know–a distinguished intellectual and artist–wrote me a note, sometime last week. Thought you might get a kick out of it:

At a cocktail party Tuesday evening, someone I did not know asked if I didn’t feel the city was unusually upbeat and elated because of the events of the day. [Inauguration Day.] I was, I guess, in an ornery mood and said I didn’t notice much difference. “Then you must be a Republican,” she said, laughing, as if such a thing were highly unlikely. When I allowed that I was, she became very flustered.

I would think!

‐Something humorous out of the military–specifically, out of our troops in Afghanistan: I received a list saying, “You may be a Taliban if . . .”–and here were three of the answers:

You refine heroin for a living but have a moral objection to beer.

You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launchers but can’t afford shoes.

You wipe your hiney with your bare left hand but consider bacon unclean.

Anyway, got a real kick out of those . . .

#JAYBOOK#

‐Would you care to receive Impromptus via RSS? Sign up here.

‐Let’s end with a warming e-mail from a reader:

Hi, Jay–
Your note about the college student feeling like a subversive while carrying around a copy of NR on campus made me smile. I often read my copy on a plane while traveling, and when finished will sometimes leave the copy in the seat pocket in front of me, just to “spread the good word.” I never gave it a second thought until I received a note from someone who found me from the cover address label–and wanted to say thanks! Made my day.

How about that, cool ones? See you later.