W.’s Wit, Jeffords’s Snit, and More

June 5, 2001 12:15 p.m.

oughly every other day, I read, or hear about, John F. Kennedy’s alleged witticism uttered at Yale, when he received an honorary degree: “Now I have the best of two worlds: a Harvard education and a Yale degree.” Kennedyites repeat this as though intoning a favorite Scripture; to them, it represents the height of wit and style. My problem has always been: It's nonsensical. I mean, isn’t it? I count it as one of those things that sound good — perceptive, elegant, a little mordant — but are actually rather empty. Has a Yale degree ever been worth more than one from farther north? Has a Harvard education ever been accepted as superior to one gained to the south? Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think it’s a bad line. I just wonder whether it deserves the exaltation it has received for all these years.

Now we get to George W. Bush. A couple of weeks ago, he, too, spoke at Yale, also receiving an honorary degree. His remarks were devoid of politics; instead, he talked about his alma mater, in a light and delightful way. One of the things this ostensibly tongue-tied president said was, “Everything I know about the English language, I learned at Yale.” I don’t know about you, but I think this crack is one of the most hilarious I’ve heard in a long while. It acknowledges an alleged weakness, and it pokes some fun at a sometimes-pompous institution. This witticism, for my money, is much better than JFK’s. But will it ever be acknowledged as such? Well, let it be — by us.

May I complain about something Jeffords-related, please? I could go on for an hour or two (and have), but let me confine myself to one, teeny-tiny thing: An article by Robin Toner in Thursday’s New York Times included the sentence, “Senator James M. Jeffords’s decision to leave the party and become an independent, which threw the Senate to the Democrats, was denounced today by Senator Trent Lott …” What’s wrong with that sentence, sports fans? Exactly: “which threw the Senate to the Democrats.” Jeffords’s decision to quit the GOP and become an independent did not throw the Senate to the Democrats; Jeffords’s decision to throw the Senate to the Democrats threw the Senate to the Democrats. These were two separate acts, and they should be treated as such. To become an independent was one thing; to give the Senate to the Democrats was another (Jeffords did so by agreeing to “caucus” with them). Jeffords could have done the former without doing the latter. Unfortunately, the line between the two acts has been blurred, by those who wish the Republicans no good. We, in our conversation and writing, should make the line brighter.

Little that John McCain has done has bothered Republicans so much as his glee over the loss of the Senate. That was a strange way for a Republican senator to respond, wasn’t it? The Senate has fallen into the hands of the Democrats: Yippee! McCain at least might have tried to contain his joy. To exult over the loss of the upper chamber of Congress is perverse. Doesn’t McCain think it’s bad for the country for the Senate to be controlled by Democrats? Is it good news that Joe Biden, not Jesse Helms, is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee? Is it good news that Pat Leahy, not Orrin Hatch, now heads the Judiciary Committee? We can debate all we want about whether McCain should follow Jeffords’s lead and exit the GOP. But most Republicans should agree that a Democratic Senate is a severe blow, for reasons of principle and policy, and that a celebration of this setback is a bit unseemly.

Anybody who believes that the Republican party is less tolerant of internal dissent than the Democratic party — which is to say, almost everyone who works for a major news organ — hasn't been paying attention. To cite merely our favorite example: The Democratic party forbids the appearance of pro-life speakers at its conventions; half the speakers at Republican conventions (or more?) are pro-choice. I suppose I agree that the conventional wisdom is usually right, though I’d have to think about it some more; here, though, the conventional wisdom is absurd.

I’m going to stroll down Memory Lane for a sec. When I was coming of age, politically, the great, passionate issue was apartheid in South Africa. Aside from “the Boer Republic,” as Pat Buchanan used to refer to it, the great demon in my circles was President Ronald Reagan. And the demon within the demon was a man named Chester Crocker, who was the architect, or at least the implementer, of the policy known as “constructive engagement.” Oh, how those words “constructive engagement” were spat out, as though you had said “genocide”; and, oh, how the name Chester Crocker was spat out, reviled, as though you had said “Satan” (or “Schlafly”). My Left hated both Betty Crocker (for her whiteness and overall Middle Americanness) and Chester Crocker.

Anyway, the hated Chester Crocker is back, and, incidentally, not much of a demon anymore: He is the prospective envoy for W.’s State Department to Sudan. Yet there is a problem: Apparently, he is requesting that he be shielded from another demon, namely the Christian Right, if he is to take the post. As he tackles the brutal war in that country, the principal victims of which are Christians in the South, he does not want to be hassled by yahoo, Jesus-lovin’ activists at home.

I wonder how my friends like Chester Crocker, and his notions of constructive engagement, now?

The young aide to Bush adviser Mark McKinnon has now pleaded guilty to being the “mole” — the one who sent debate-prep materials from Austin to the Gore campaign. Case closed, right? For most people, yes, but not for me. Do you recall the Gore staffer who boasted in e-mails to friends that the Gore people had a mole in the Bush campaign? And do you recall that this guy signed a false affidavit? And do you recall that the Gore people quickly prepared another one for him? And that this guy was suspended, not fired, but suspended from the campaign — with pay? I didn’t think so: There’s no one to remind you. You don’t have to be a liberal-media obsessive to grant the following: that if a Bush staffer had claimed a mole in the other campaign, and proceeded to lie about it, and was suspended from the campaign with pay (which smells of cover-up/keep-'im-happy), it would have been a story. It would have been page-one, top-of-the-hour until things were set right. The media devoted much space and time to less significant things: like “RATS.”

Many readers have expressed an interest in acquiring the book I wrote about in a recent issue of the magazine: The American Citizens Handbook, published for decades by the National Education Association, but unavailable since 1968. The NEA actually paid someone to bury its remaining 10,000 copies. Small wonder: The Handbook represented a high and glorious liberalism that the NEA, and every other “liberal,” came to reject. Readers have wondered how to get a hold of this book, long out of print, and extremely pricey on Internet used-book services. I will say, George Bush (the Elder) style, Stay tuned: Help is on the way (oh, hang on, that second part is from a later candidate).

While we’re on books: Joe and Hadassah Lieberman have begun work on theirs, a campaign memoir. Couldn’t you just write it?

Most of the time, when conservatives try to play nicey-nice with the Left, they get burned. I was reminded of this, for the 4 millionth or so time, when interior secretary Gale Norton invited Robert Redford to participate with her at some environmentalist function. Redford put out a splashy “no,” explaining that he could not give aid and comfort to Nazis (basically). The idea that Robert Redford can be made common cause with, reached out to, was never very bright. He is not a nice, mushy, well-meaning liberal, but a pretty firm Castroite, and the beautiful face he once had should not mask this nasty fact.

Speaking of beautiful faces: Phyllis George, the former Miss Texas and Miss America, may run for office in Kentucky, where she was once first lady. Miss George — I guess she’s not Mrs. Brown anymore, as she is divorced from former Kentucky governor John Y. Brown — is the first Miss America I remember, and I think perhaps the most beautiful, of all time (with apologies to Bess Myerson, Vanessa Williams, and the rest of the gals). Celebrities can get elected to most anything, it seems. Though she’s a Texan and now a New Yorker (a Park Avenuite), I wouldn’t bet against Phyllis George, Democrat, in Kentucky. And, you know, she’s still got the look.

The New York Times crossword puzzle of May 31, 56 across: “He stopped smoking cigars in 1985.” Answer: “Castro.” Yes, that’s one way to describe the Cuban dictator; and it is both a more accurate and a more fair way than many of those the Times has used over the years.

I’m afraid I’ll end on a sad note, also related to Cuba: The dissident and political prisoner Marcelo Diosdado has died there. As far as his widow is concerned, the authorities killed him. Diosdado was a brave and inspiring man. He had long protested against the Communist regime, and he was, of course, brutalized because of it. On May 20, he finally gave out at Aguaderos prison in the province of Santiago de Cuba. Diosdado suffered from chronic circulatory problems, and on that day he experienced a severe attack. The authorities would not provide medical care. His death, whose details I will leave aside, was hideous.

According to Mrs. Diosdado, the funeral featured something of a pro-democracy demonstration, which caused the police to move in with sticks. They beat many of the mourner-protesters. The people began to chant, “Down with Fidel! Freedom!” After much harassment and insanity, the family at last got the body buried. The pain of all of Cuban dissidence is acute. The unconcern of so many others is a scandal.