Bizzaro World-The Unfair, Untrue Caricaturization of Conservatives
Impromptus
By Jay Nordlinger
National Public Radio
In the last few days, I’ve been thinking a little about Dick Cheney’s image. This stems from a lunch a group of us had with him last week (and I wrote about it here). Cheney is an unusual person: very sensible, very measured, very trustworthy. No wonder he has been entrusted with so many sensitive government positions. He is a calm person, and he has a calming effect on others. He is the kind of man you want in public service — party or partisanship quite aside.
In the course of our lunch, he said that the recent Democratic victory was “part of the normal cycle of a competitive two-party system,” and “fundamentally healthy for the nation.” He also talked about how wondrous it was to swear in the first black president. And what is his widespread image? He is a kind of Dr. Evil to people, although, unlike the Austin Powers one, not a comical Dr. Evil. He is a right-wing menace, a scourge of civil liberties, a Torquemada. This is absolutely perverse. And what of President Bush’s image — at least one aspect of it? They say that he is less than bright: that he is stupid. And stupid is the last thing President Bush is. Call him willful, call him stubborn, call him petulant or cussed or difficult. Stupid, he is not.
Consider one more public figure: Sarah Palin.
I keep hearing and reading, in various quarters, that she is a “bimbo.” That is the word I hear about her, rather a lot: “bimbo.” This is a woman, of course, who has been married since her early 20s. She and her husband, Todd, have five children. Sarah is governor of her state; Todd works in the oil fields. From what anyone can tell, they delight in each other, and in their family. They seem almost an advertisement for monogamy: for the married life. And yet people say “bimbo.”
In a nation full of bimbos, Governor Palin is one of the few who aren’t.
It seems to me that the Left has won: utterly and decisively. What I mean is, the Saturday Night Live, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher mentality has prevailed. They decide what a person’s image is, and those images stick. They are the ones who say that Cheney’s a monster, W.’s stupid, and Palin’s a bimbo. And the country, apparently, follows. I have a friend who teaches at a prominent university, and she says that, when Palin’s name is mentioned, the people laugh. In the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, an extraordinarily accomplished woman — more accomplished than most of the rest of us will ever be — was turned into a laughingstock.
What are the shaping institutions of American life? The news media. Entertainment television. The movies. Popular music. The schools, K through grad school. In whose hands are those institutions? In what areas do conservatives predominate? Country music, NASCAR, some churches? (Talk radio too, I suppose — no wonder so many on the left want to shut it down.) I will be talking more about this in the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.
Sidney Blumenthal once wrote a book called “The Rise of the Counter-Establishment” (meaning conservative associations and institutions). The counter-establishment needs to be tended, and beefed up. A country that believes that Cheney’s a monster, W.’s stupid, and Palin’s a bimbo is a country with its head up its . . .
A report from the Associated Press began as follows: “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday it is unlikely that ailing former Cuban leader Fidel Castro will ever appear in public again.” My question is, Will his political prisoners ever appear in public again? Or will they remain in their dungeons until they die?And do opinion-makers in free countries care?Jimmy Carter got himself known as a human-rights president, and he has created an image as a human-rights person all around. Very curious. He is certainly selective. Recently, he has been in China, praising that state to the skies. In his meetings with PRC rulers, he apparently said nothing about human rights — and this is a country, remember, with a gulag (called “laogai”). Untold numbers of people have disappeared into it.Listen to a little of this AP report:
“The main thing is for the new administration to work harmoniously with China . . . and overcome those differences which are inevitable and seek out the best ways to cooperate as partners,” Carter said on the sidelines of a conference commemorating the establishment of ties [between the U.S. and the PRC] on Jan. 1, 1979.Human rights issues have . . . been a consistent source of friction between the two sides, with the U.S. pushing China to improve its poor record, including its religious repression and silencing of political dissidents. But Carter, a recipient of the U.N. Human Rights Award and a fierce critic of [the] United States’ own human rights violations under the Bush administration, did not make any public comments on the issue on this trip.
Instead Carter praised China for its remarkable transformation over the past three decades. “Not even Deng Xiaoping could have anticipated the glorious changes that have taken place in this wonderful country,” he said during his opening speech at the academic conference.
So, that’s Carter. If Chinese political prisoners are waiting on him, they will be waiting a long, long time. When people such as Carter urge free countries to “work harmoniously with China” and to “cooperate as partners” — what they mean is, “Shut up about human rights.” By the way, if the Philippines of Marcos, or the Chile of Pinochet, or the South Africa of the Boers had harvested organs — what would Carter and the Today show (to use a shorthand) have said?And did you catch the AP, above? “Carter, a recipient of the U.N. Human Rights Award and a fierce critic of [the] United States’ own human rights violations under the Bush administration . . .”! Not even an “alleged”!
In Gaza, Tony Blair wants a ceasefire, the French government wants a ceasefire, everyone and his brother wants a ceasefire — well, almost everyone and his brother. I am struck by the difference in aims here — aims cherished by two sides. On one side are Blair et al.; on the other are the Israelis, or at least most Israelis. (Where the government stands is not entirely clear, because the government has maintained some ambiguity, and wisely.)
For one side, a ceasefire is paramount — the cessation of the current violence is paramount. For the other, the destruction of Hamas — or at least the hobbling of it, so as to prevent violence in the future — is paramount. These two goals are not reconcilable: a ceasefire (which would spare Hamas) versus the end, or crippling, of Hamas.An elementary point, to be sure, but sometimes the elementary should be aired. As we learn in this report, “French teachers hurled shoes and other objects at police Monday to protest President Nicolas Sarkozy’s high school reforms, prompting police to respond with tear gas.” Hurling shoes, eh? Nice — just the sort of people you want teachin’ the young-uns. “British PM condemns prince’s racial slur,” said the headline (over this article).
The prince was Harry, and the slur was “Paki.” Let’s just say that slurs ain’t what they used to be. It is common (or used to be) in geopolitical talk to refer to the Pakistanis as “the Paks.” Vice President Cheney did this on television. What a difference a syllable makes, apparently: “Paks” versus “Pakis.” It reminds me of something that Rob Long once said (or was it Mark Steyn?). Suddenly, it became trendy in America to have a little Hitler mustache on the lower lip — below the lower lip. An inch or two above that: not so cool. What a difference an inch or two makes. I was amused by something the AP’s (notorious) Jennifer Loven wrote, in her article about Bush’s final press conference. She said, “The news conference, held in the White House’s press briefing room, comes as Bush has been granting a flurry of legacy-focused interviews, often with niche interviewers and news outlets as he seeks to shape the view of his presidency on his way out the door.”
So, my officemates and I are “niche interviewers,” and NR and NRO are “niche news outlets.” I’ll buy that. Reading that George Voinovich will retire from the Senate, I thought of a story Bill Buckley used to tell. Cardinal Segura, in Seville, was a severe type, who frowned on dancing and the like. After he died, a visitor asked a local, “How’s it going, now that the cardinal is gone?” Came the reply: “When Cardinal Segura left us, both he and we passed on to a better world.” I hope that Senator Voinovich enjoys his retirement.
Now available from National Review is Here, There & Everywhere: Collected Writings of Jay Nordlinger. It contains almost 100 pieces, on a great variety of topics. And it is just over 500 pages long. Mark Helprin, the novelist and analyst, says that reading these pieces is “like opening one present after another.” The book is $24.95, but is being offered through NRO for $21.95. If you’d like an inscription from the author, that’s free. To order the book, please go here.
So, that’s a book plug. And if you would like Impromptus fed by RSS — if you want an RSS feed for this column — go here. (It’s free, natch!)Care for a little music? To read my December “New York Chronicle,” in The New Criterion, go here. And to read January’s, go here. Performers discussed include Valery Gergiev, Richard Egarr, Alisa Weilerstein, Lorin Maazel, James Levine, Susan Graham, Daniel Barenboim, Piotr Anderszewski, and Chanticleer. For The New Criterion’s homepage, go here.Reader writes,
Jay, I’m driving home from playing golf around noon Saturday and I pull up to a traffic light. In front of me is a car with a bumper sticker: “One Nation, One People, Obama.” A chill ran down my spine. Can you guess why? Does that evoke something for you?
Yupperz. Another letter — this one from an Ivy League campus:
Mr. Nordlinger,I was talking to an undergraduate this evening who told me that he has an assignment for class to write an “op-ed piece” relating any World War II-related anniversary to modern times. Do you want to guess what he’s doing? He’s comparing the liberation of Auschwitz to the closing of Gitmo.
But of course. I’ll be surprised if they don’t put him on the faculty!Some columns ago, I had an item — a reader had sent it in — on a Mr. Dikshit, who was in trouble with the law. Another reader has written,
Jay,At least Anurag Dikshit can thank his lucky stars that his first name isn’t Prikshit, like the childhood buddy of an Indian friend of mine. That’s right, Prikshit Dikshit: one dude who won’t be emigrating to an English-speaking country anytime soon.
I have had a great many responses to a few recent columns: about Bush and Cheney; about Marilyn Horne; about Elliott Carter; and, above all, about the intrusion of partisan politics into nonpolitical spheres — “My Kingdom for a Safe Zone.” I hope to publish some of those responses in coming weeks. Then again, I still want to deal with mail concerning my Iraq journal of last October . . .And this would be a good time to issue one of my periodic apologies: I am dreadfully behind on my mail, and sorry for it.
In Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, I had an op-ed piece on Bush — his basic decency and likability: here. I cited several incidents that I thought showed a characteristic Bush. I should have mentioned the shoe-throwing in Baghdad: his response to which was almost the definition of cool (in my opinion).
Ah, well: Can’t remember everything, I guess. But you can always write again!
I don’t believe I have ever quoted Hugh Hefner in this column, or anywhere else. Shall I end that way today? I ran across something amusing recently, and thought you might find it so too. Hefner, 42, meets Barbi Benton, 18. He asks her out. She says, “I’ve never gone out with anyone older than 24.” He says, “That’s okay, I haven’t either.”Oh, I can’t end with Hef — let’s end with a little language. Something language-related. Indeed, I think I’ve had this in Impromptus before. But the other day, I mentioned the word “stewardess” — as in, can’t say it, must say “flight attendant” instead. A man wrote, “My young daughter pointed out a while back that ‘stewardesses’ is the longest word she knows that can be typed entirely by the left hand. Do you know a longer one?” No, but that reminds me of my junior-high basketball coach, Ken Treaster: who pointed out that his last name was typed by the left hand alone.
On that non-Hefnerian note: See you.
By Jay Nordlinger
National Public Radio
In the last few days, I’ve been thinking a little about Dick Cheney’s image. This stems from a lunch a group of us had with him last week (and I wrote about it here). Cheney is an unusual person: very sensible, very measured, very trustworthy. No wonder he has been entrusted with so many sensitive government positions. He is a calm person, and he has a calming effect on others. He is the kind of man you want in public service — party or partisanship quite aside.
In the course of our lunch, he said that the recent Democratic victory was “part of the normal cycle of a competitive two-party system,” and “fundamentally healthy for the nation.” He also talked about how wondrous it was to swear in the first black president. And what is his widespread image? He is a kind of Dr. Evil to people, although, unlike the Austin Powers one, not a comical Dr. Evil. He is a right-wing menace, a scourge of civil liberties, a Torquemada. This is absolutely perverse. And what of President Bush’s image — at least one aspect of it? They say that he is less than bright: that he is stupid. And stupid is the last thing President Bush is. Call him willful, call him stubborn, call him petulant or cussed or difficult. Stupid, he is not.
Consider one more public figure: Sarah Palin.
I keep hearing and reading, in various quarters, that she is a “bimbo.” That is the word I hear about her, rather a lot: “bimbo.” This is a woman, of course, who has been married since her early 20s. She and her husband, Todd, have five children. Sarah is governor of her state; Todd works in the oil fields. From what anyone can tell, they delight in each other, and in their family. They seem almost an advertisement for monogamy: for the married life. And yet people say “bimbo.”
In a nation full of bimbos, Governor Palin is one of the few who aren’t.
It seems to me that the Left has won: utterly and decisively. What I mean is, the Saturday Night Live, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher mentality has prevailed. They decide what a person’s image is, and those images stick. They are the ones who say that Cheney’s a monster, W.’s stupid, and Palin’s a bimbo. And the country, apparently, follows. I have a friend who teaches at a prominent university, and she says that, when Palin’s name is mentioned, the people laugh. In the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, an extraordinarily accomplished woman — more accomplished than most of the rest of us will ever be — was turned into a laughingstock.
What are the shaping institutions of American life? The news media. Entertainment television. The movies. Popular music. The schools, K through grad school. In whose hands are those institutions? In what areas do conservatives predominate? Country music, NASCAR, some churches? (Talk radio too, I suppose — no wonder so many on the left want to shut it down.) I will be talking more about this in the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.
Sidney Blumenthal once wrote a book called “The Rise of the Counter-Establishment” (meaning conservative associations and institutions). The counter-establishment needs to be tended, and beefed up. A country that believes that Cheney’s a monster, W.’s stupid, and Palin’s a bimbo is a country with its head up its . . .
A report from the Associated Press began as follows: “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday it is unlikely that ailing former Cuban leader Fidel Castro will ever appear in public again.” My question is, Will his political prisoners ever appear in public again? Or will they remain in their dungeons until they die?And do opinion-makers in free countries care?Jimmy Carter got himself known as a human-rights president, and he has created an image as a human-rights person all around. Very curious. He is certainly selective. Recently, he has been in China, praising that state to the skies. In his meetings with PRC rulers, he apparently said nothing about human rights — and this is a country, remember, with a gulag (called “laogai”). Untold numbers of people have disappeared into it.Listen to a little of this AP report:
“The main thing is for the new administration to work harmoniously with China . . . and overcome those differences which are inevitable and seek out the best ways to cooperate as partners,” Carter said on the sidelines of a conference commemorating the establishment of ties [between the U.S. and the PRC] on Jan. 1, 1979.Human rights issues have . . . been a consistent source of friction between the two sides, with the U.S. pushing China to improve its poor record, including its religious repression and silencing of political dissidents. But Carter, a recipient of the U.N. Human Rights Award and a fierce critic of [the] United States’ own human rights violations under the Bush administration, did not make any public comments on the issue on this trip.
Instead Carter praised China for its remarkable transformation over the past three decades. “Not even Deng Xiaoping could have anticipated the glorious changes that have taken place in this wonderful country,” he said during his opening speech at the academic conference.
So, that’s Carter. If Chinese political prisoners are waiting on him, they will be waiting a long, long time. When people such as Carter urge free countries to “work harmoniously with China” and to “cooperate as partners” — what they mean is, “Shut up about human rights.” By the way, if the Philippines of Marcos, or the Chile of Pinochet, or the South Africa of the Boers had harvested organs — what would Carter and the Today show (to use a shorthand) have said?And did you catch the AP, above? “Carter, a recipient of the U.N. Human Rights Award and a fierce critic of [the] United States’ own human rights violations under the Bush administration . . .”! Not even an “alleged”!
In Gaza, Tony Blair wants a ceasefire, the French government wants a ceasefire, everyone and his brother wants a ceasefire — well, almost everyone and his brother. I am struck by the difference in aims here — aims cherished by two sides. On one side are Blair et al.; on the other are the Israelis, or at least most Israelis. (Where the government stands is not entirely clear, because the government has maintained some ambiguity, and wisely.)
For one side, a ceasefire is paramount — the cessation of the current violence is paramount. For the other, the destruction of Hamas — or at least the hobbling of it, so as to prevent violence in the future — is paramount. These two goals are not reconcilable: a ceasefire (which would spare Hamas) versus the end, or crippling, of Hamas.An elementary point, to be sure, but sometimes the elementary should be aired. As we learn in this report, “French teachers hurled shoes and other objects at police Monday to protest President Nicolas Sarkozy’s high school reforms, prompting police to respond with tear gas.” Hurling shoes, eh? Nice — just the sort of people you want teachin’ the young-uns. “British PM condemns prince’s racial slur,” said the headline (over this article).
The prince was Harry, and the slur was “Paki.” Let’s just say that slurs ain’t what they used to be. It is common (or used to be) in geopolitical talk to refer to the Pakistanis as “the Paks.” Vice President Cheney did this on television. What a difference a syllable makes, apparently: “Paks” versus “Pakis.” It reminds me of something that Rob Long once said (or was it Mark Steyn?). Suddenly, it became trendy in America to have a little Hitler mustache on the lower lip — below the lower lip. An inch or two above that: not so cool. What a difference an inch or two makes. I was amused by something the AP’s (notorious) Jennifer Loven wrote, in her article about Bush’s final press conference. She said, “The news conference, held in the White House’s press briefing room, comes as Bush has been granting a flurry of legacy-focused interviews, often with niche interviewers and news outlets as he seeks to shape the view of his presidency on his way out the door.”
So, my officemates and I are “niche interviewers,” and NR and NRO are “niche news outlets.” I’ll buy that. Reading that George Voinovich will retire from the Senate, I thought of a story Bill Buckley used to tell. Cardinal Segura, in Seville, was a severe type, who frowned on dancing and the like. After he died, a visitor asked a local, “How’s it going, now that the cardinal is gone?” Came the reply: “When Cardinal Segura left us, both he and we passed on to a better world.” I hope that Senator Voinovich enjoys his retirement.
Now available from National Review is Here, There & Everywhere: Collected Writings of Jay Nordlinger. It contains almost 100 pieces, on a great variety of topics. And it is just over 500 pages long. Mark Helprin, the novelist and analyst, says that reading these pieces is “like opening one present after another.” The book is $24.95, but is being offered through NRO for $21.95. If you’d like an inscription from the author, that’s free. To order the book, please go here.
So, that’s a book plug. And if you would like Impromptus fed by RSS — if you want an RSS feed for this column — go here. (It’s free, natch!)Care for a little music? To read my December “New York Chronicle,” in The New Criterion, go here. And to read January’s, go here. Performers discussed include Valery Gergiev, Richard Egarr, Alisa Weilerstein, Lorin Maazel, James Levine, Susan Graham, Daniel Barenboim, Piotr Anderszewski, and Chanticleer. For The New Criterion’s homepage, go here.Reader writes,
Jay, I’m driving home from playing golf around noon Saturday and I pull up to a traffic light. In front of me is a car with a bumper sticker: “One Nation, One People, Obama.” A chill ran down my spine. Can you guess why? Does that evoke something for you?
Yupperz. Another letter — this one from an Ivy League campus:
Mr. Nordlinger,I was talking to an undergraduate this evening who told me that he has an assignment for class to write an “op-ed piece” relating any World War II-related anniversary to modern times. Do you want to guess what he’s doing? He’s comparing the liberation of Auschwitz to the closing of Gitmo.
But of course. I’ll be surprised if they don’t put him on the faculty!Some columns ago, I had an item — a reader had sent it in — on a Mr. Dikshit, who was in trouble with the law. Another reader has written,
Jay,At least Anurag Dikshit can thank his lucky stars that his first name isn’t Prikshit, like the childhood buddy of an Indian friend of mine. That’s right, Prikshit Dikshit: one dude who won’t be emigrating to an English-speaking country anytime soon.
I have had a great many responses to a few recent columns: about Bush and Cheney; about Marilyn Horne; about Elliott Carter; and, above all, about the intrusion of partisan politics into nonpolitical spheres — “My Kingdom for a Safe Zone.” I hope to publish some of those responses in coming weeks. Then again, I still want to deal with mail concerning my Iraq journal of last October . . .And this would be a good time to issue one of my periodic apologies: I am dreadfully behind on my mail, and sorry for it.
In Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, I had an op-ed piece on Bush — his basic decency and likability: here. I cited several incidents that I thought showed a characteristic Bush. I should have mentioned the shoe-throwing in Baghdad: his response to which was almost the definition of cool (in my opinion).
Ah, well: Can’t remember everything, I guess. But you can always write again!
I don’t believe I have ever quoted Hugh Hefner in this column, or anywhere else. Shall I end that way today? I ran across something amusing recently, and thought you might find it so too. Hefner, 42, meets Barbi Benton, 18. He asks her out. She says, “I’ve never gone out with anyone older than 24.” He says, “That’s okay, I haven’t either.”Oh, I can’t end with Hef — let’s end with a little language. Something language-related. Indeed, I think I’ve had this in Impromptus before. But the other day, I mentioned the word “stewardess” — as in, can’t say it, must say “flight attendant” instead. A man wrote, “My young daughter pointed out a while back that ‘stewardesses’ is the longest word she knows that can be typed entirely by the left hand. Do you know a longer one?” No, but that reminds me of my junior-high basketball coach, Ken Treaster: who pointed out that his last name was typed by the left hand alone.
On that non-Hefnerian note: See you.
posted by Northern Exposer at 04:16
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home