William Safire, RIP

William Safire, who died this past Sunday of pancreatic cancer at the age of 79, was probably most significant as a political figure; he won enduring fame when, as a Nixon speechwriter, he coined the phrase “nattering nabobs of negativity,” then spent over thirty years as a political columnist for the New York Times. Generally described as a conservative stalwart, he really wasn’t all that conservative; what he was, as the Times obituary rightly says, was “a pugnacious contrarian” who never backed down from a fight he could pick.

And oh, how he fought! The Times aptly calls him “a Pickwickian quibbler who gleefully pounced on gaffes, inexactitudes, neologisms, misnomers, solecisms and perversely peccant puns, like ‘the president’s populism’ and ‘the first lady’s momulism,’ written during the Carter presidency.” This led him, quite reasonably, to his other major column: “On Language,” which he wrote from 1979 until earlier this month. In the larger scheme of things, I suppose Safire the linguist, lexicographer, and arbiter of usage was probably less important than Safire the political writer—but in my book, his work on language was more interesting, and is more likely to endure, not only for the work itself but for all those whom he encouraged to follow in his footsteps. As one such author, Ben Zimmer of the Visual Thesaurus, writes,

On hearing of his passing, fellow maven Paul Dickson remarked to me that Safire “opened a door which a lot of people got to walk through and play with words as a vocation.” That was certainly true in my case. . . .

After becoming editor for American dictionaries at Oxford University Press, I fielded occasional queries from Safire and his research assistants (on everything from “go figure” to “fire wall“). He was always quick to give credit where credit was due, and he also enjoyed coming up with warm-spirited epithets for those who helped him. (I was on the receiving end of “that etymological Inspector Javert,” “netymologist,” and “longtime capo of the Phrasedick Brigade“—sobriquets that I will always treasure.)

For all his feistiness, Safire was a man who inspired personal as well as professional admiration; Zimmer describes him as “an extremely generous man, both publicly in his philanthropic work with the Dana Foundation and privately with friends and colleagues,” and concludes, “He will be remembered fondly for his openness, humanity, and thoughtfulness.” Tevi Troy relates a priceless and revealing anecdote that begins in Safire’s speechwriting days:

The day before Yom Kippur, Safire left the Agnew campaign for 36 hours to fly cross-country to Washington, arriving at Adas Israel synagogue on Connecticut Avenue just in time for the Kol Nidre service that signals the onset of the holiday.

Unfortunately, the synagogue’s rabbi considered himself a bit of a political speechwriter as well, and gave an overly political and unbecoming sermon that evening condemning “those who would use alliteration to polarize our society.” As Safire put it in his book Before the Fall, “that’s all I needed; the ‘nattering nabobs of negativism’ was not a sin I had come to atone for.” Yitzhak Rabin, who was the Israeli ambassador to Washington at the time, comforted Safire after the sermon and later told the rabbi that he felt the attack was inappropriate, something for which Safire was forever grateful.

Two and a half decades later, Safire and Rabin were reunited at a dinner at the Israeli embassy. The two men got into a heated discussion about the Oslo peace process and, according to Safire, “the man sitting at the table between us—Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who never breaches protocol—blanched at the seeming heatedness of the exchange.” Rabin then told the story of that long ago Yom Kippur and explained to Christopher, ‘That’s why we can get angry with each other today without getting angry with each other.”

The key to victory: don’t lose your nerve

If Obamacare doesn’t pass, it will in the end be because the Democrats forgot that rule. Granted, they have some reason—right now, 2010 isn’t looking like a great year for them. Support for the President’s health care “plan” (one has to put it in quotes because there is not in fact one coherent plan) is down to 41%, with 56% opposed, and the numbers are even worse among senior citizens; perhaps more importantly, the sense of inevitability is gone, with a slight plurality of voters saying no health care bill will pass this year (and a majority of independents—58%). The President’s approval rating continues to sag as well.

Still, his Approval Index is somewhat better than it was earlier this year, and the Democrats have pulled to within two points of the GOP on the generic congressional ballot; and perhaps most importantly, the Democratic caucus on the Hill has the votes to pass any bill it pleases with no help whatsoever from the Republican minority. In short, if the Democratic Party actually believes in its declared principles, all its leaders have to do is stick to their guns and they can do what they believe to be best.

Will they? Well, if Rich Lowry is to be believed, maybe not:

That’s the prediction of a source in the Senate. He thinks Reid will certainly vote for cloture, but that the bill will be so unpopular—and his own standing in Nevada so precarious—that he’ll vote against it on final passage, especially if—as seems likely—the sweetheart deal for Nevada on Medicaid is eventually stripped out.

If—and it seems implausible, but if—one of the two primary legislative leaders of the Democratic Party is in fact prepared to bail on the most important element of his party’s political agenda in a bid to save his own skin, then combined with the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to euthanize the “public option,” one would have to conclude that we’re seeing a major failure of nerve. Barack Obama may well need to pull a mighty big rabbit out of his hat if he wants to win this one—and given that he hasn’t managed that yet, and seems to have no real idea how he might, I don’t know where he’s going to find one.

Can you say “personality cult,” boys and girls?

One of the things I missed last week was the creepy little story of New Jersey elementary-school kids being taught songs in praise of Barack Obama. I’m sorry, that’s just un-American; in this country, we don’t venerate our leaders until they’re safely off the stage, and usually dead. This sort of engineered adulation belongs in places like North Korea, not here. I’m with Tyler Dawn—I’d find this just as creepy and just as nauseating if it had been for President Bush, or President Reagan, or anybody else.

Incidentally, for all the folks who were having hysterics and mocking conservatives for their reaction to the President’s school speech—granted that that reaction was in many instances excessive—stuff like this is the reason for it. It wasn’t that the President was speaking to our kids, it was the suspicion that he wanted to politicize them and turn them into Obamabots—and that the public-school system would, in large part, gladly go along with that agenda—that sent so many people up in flames; and garbage like this only reinforces and aggravates those concerns.

Now, obviously, it’s not likely that this was directly orchestrated by the White House; but it’s all of a piece with the politics-by-personality-cult approach Barack Obama and his campaign have taken all along. It’s the sort of thing that prompted even a liberal like Doug Hagler to complain about the messianic tone of the Obama campaign, which went along with the candidate’s apparent messianic view of his own leadership. This isn’t even the first creepy video this has produced—not by a long shot.

The problem of filtered reality

All hail the Volokh Conspiracy:

I then said something like—“but it does seem like the overall level of defense is improving all over—I see so many great plays these days . . .” before I recognized how stupid a comment that was. Of course I was seeing more great defensive plays than I had 10 or 20 years before—because 10 or 20 years before there had been no Sportscenter (or equivalent). In 1992 (or whenever exactly this was), I could turn on the TV and catch 20 or 30 minutes of great highlights every night, including 5 or 6 truly spectacular defensive plays; in 1980, or 1960, to see 5 or 6 truly spectacular defensive plays, you had to watch 20 or 25 hours of baseball, minimum. [That’s what ESPN was doing, in effect—watching 10 or 12 games simultaneously and pulling out the highlights]. It was just my mind playing a trick on me; I had unconsciously made a very simple mistake. The way in which I was perceiving the world of baseball had, with Sportscenter, changed fundamentally, but I hadn’t taken that into account. . . .

I call it the ESPN Effect—mistaking filtered reality for reality. We do it a lot. All I hear from my left-leaning friends these days is how crazy people on the right are becoming, and all all I hear from my right-leaning friends is how crazy people on the left are becoming, and everyone, on both sides, seems very eager to provide evidence of the utter lunacy of those on the other side. “Look how crazy they’re becoming over there, on the other side!” is becoming something of a dominant trope, on left and right. It is true that we’re seeing more crazy people doing crazy things on the other side (whichever side that may be, for you) coming across our eyeballs these days. But that’s all filtered reality; it bears no more relationship to reality than the Sportscenter highlights bear to the game of baseball. My very, very strong suspicion is that there has never been a time when there weren’t truly crazy people on all sides of the political spectrum doing their truly crazy things. Maybe 1% or so, or even 0.1%—which is a very large number, when you’re talking about a population of, say, 100 million. They didn’t get through the filters much in the Old Days, but they do now. All this talk about how extreme “the debate” is becoming—how, exactly, does anyone get a bead on what “the debate” really is? In reality?

HT: bearing blog, via my wife

I think David Post has an important point here—though I will note one somewhat countervailing point: the people on the right to whom liberals point are generally folks whom most others on the right, and certainly the leading voices on the right, would also disavow, and consider something of an embarrassment; they are truly a lunatic fringe. As the case of Van Jones demonstrated, and as the President’s ongoing campaign organization keeps demonstrating, the folks conservatives point to on the left are usually people whom liberals consider mainstream, at least until there’s some sort of hue and cry to make them pretend otherwise. That’s why Mark Steyn went so far as to say,

what is odd to me, if you look for example at the way Republicans are always being called on to distance themselves from their so-called lunatic fringe, the pattern here is that on the other side of the aisle, there is a lunatic mainstream. ACORN should not be a respectable group, and should not be anywhere near the United States Census. But as we saw with the Van Jones story, no matter how radical you are, on the left, it’s very easy for the most extreme radical to get right up close to the levers of power in the United States. That is where, unfortunately, that is where Obama’s lived most of his adult life, and that is where most of his associations are.

None of this invalidates Post’s point; but I do think it modifies it somewhat.

Playing politics with the troops

Check this out:

Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

There have been many campaign promises “adjusted” since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments it has blithely turned aside in the interest of “pragmatism.”

Jim Geraghty, commenting on this, writes,

The base of the Democratic party is fundamentally pacifist and isolationist and has extraordinary, although not complete, leverage over this White House. They want the rest of the world to go away so we can focus on creating the perfect health-care system. . . .

We now know liberal bloggers never meant what they wrote about Afghanistan. We will soon know if the president meant anything he said about that war on the campaign trail.

On that, the Anchoress is skeptical. Sure, six months ago, the President said that the war in Afghanistan is one we must win and could easily lose, that it would be a Very Bad Thing if we did, and thus that we needed to send more troops and push harder; now, though, he has Secretary of State Clinton telling our military commanders that we don’t need to send more troops because the situation really isn’t that bad. (Umm, politicians with no military training or experience who are half a world away from the combat zones interfering with the military commanders on the scene . . . I thought the idea was not to have another Vietnam. Was I wrong?) As the Anchoress sums it all up,

The Afghan war, the “good” war, the “war that needs winning” was—it turns out—just one more hammer meant to beat up Bush.

Now, the Anchoress sounds mostly resigned about this, I think because she never expected anything better out of the Left. Others, though, are less so; Ace, for one, is utterly furious:

But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

You claimed to support a war in which American soldiers were fighting and dying, leaving friends and limbs on the battlefield, as a cynical political strategy?

You . . . um . . . voiced support of a real serious-as-death war to cadge votes out of a duped public?

We won’t forget, champ. And we won’t let you forget, either.

Again we see a leftist projecting his pathological darkness on to others. They accused Bush of fighting wars for this very reason. And now, when it’s safe to say so (they think), they concede: We supported a war for the reason we accused Bush of doing so for 8 years.

I think Ace is right to be furious at the sickening dishonesty, hypocrisy and cynicism evident here, as these people berated George W. Bush to high heaven for “playing politics with people’s lives” and “using war for political gain” even as—indeed, as the very act of—doing the exact same thing. I agree, if that’s what President Bush was doing (and I didn’t and don’t agree that it was, either by intent or in practice, which is why I supported him), it was reprehensible; but doesn’t that make his critics, who are now admitting to doing so, at least as reprehensible?

Still, I don’t have the energy even to reach, let alone to sustain, Ace’s level of anger; in large part, I suppose, because I too never expected anything better. It would have been nice to believe that President Bush’s critics were all operating out of the degree of moral seriousness and geopolitical awareness they claimed; but in truth, the only ones I ever believed to be sincere were the ones (like Doug Hagler, I believe) who were just as opposed to Afghanistan as to Iraq. I thought (and still think) they were wrong and unwise, but I trusted them to be honest, as I did not trust the posers. As such, I am not surprised, nor even truly dismayed, for the reality merely matches my expectations.

Methinks somebody struck a nerve

—or rather, that a whole bunch of somebodies did, judging by the Left’s reaction to the turnout in D.C. on Saturday. Dan Riehl has a good rundown, as does Charlie Martin (HT: Shout First, Ask Questions Later), while Thomas Lifson quotes a spokesman for the National Park Service as saying,

It is a record. . . . We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever.

No question, estimating crowd sizes is tricky under any circumstances; the high-end estimate I’ve seen is 2.3 million people, so it seems reasonable to guess that the actual number of participants was lower, and probably a fair bit lower. On the other hand, the media’s attempts to dismiss the crowd as “tens of thousands” is simply ludicrous, given the pictures and videos; there were, at the very least, hundreds of thousands, as one participant makes clear:

Here is a series of time lapse photos of the march from 8:00 am to 11:30am. The crowd was constantly anywhere from 25 to 50 abreast. I know. I walked in the middle of it, along the sidewalks to move forward quicker, and around the entire circuit, up to and beyond Senate Park. At times, we were so crammed together, breathing became strained. Taking the low number, and assuming a line of 25 crossing a given point every second for three-and-a-half hours, gives you about 300,000. Whatever the actual number, it was certainly magnitudes greater than “tens of thousands.”

At this point in time, I feel pretty confident saying two things: one, the number of people who turned out for this past weekend’s Tea Party is at least comparable to the number who showed up this past January for the inauguration, and probably greater than the record attendance (1.2 million) at LBJ’s inauguration in 1964; and two, the dispute really doesn’t matter. What matters is, it was huge, the largest grassroots event in American history, and however much the media might try to downplay that fact, the politicians in D. C. know how big it was. What they do with that is up to them, but I don’t think any of them are foolish enough to believe the media spin.

One more blogroll addition

I’d never run across the blog “Shout First, Ask Questions Later” before today—I found it courtesy of a link from Kathryn Jean Lopez—but having found it, I’m glad I did. I linked a couple of her posts in the post immediately below this one (and there are more on the 9/12 march that deserve your time), and I’ve added it to the blogroll as well, as one of the loyal opposition. Check it out—but wait until you have a little time; there’s a lot there.

Barack Obama, uniter?

In a way, perhaps. No, President “I Won” hasn’t proven to be the post-partisan “new politics”political messiah his campaign promised, but no rational human being could have expected that he would be; it’s simply not in the cards for a politician to come along and bring consensus between the parties (though if he were actually trying to build coalitions and create compromises rather than steering such a partisan course, we might be closer). More seriously, though, he can’t even unite his own party, which is why his domestic agenda has had such a rocky course of late despite Democratic dominance on the Hill.

What our community-organizer president does seem to be doing, though, is uniting and inspiring large chunks of the grassroots. To be sure, lately he’s been uniting and inspiring them against him, but hey, you can’t have everything. I was amazed to hear predictions that the Tea Party movement’s March on Washington would draw hundreds of thousands of people; the House leadership even put out a memo projecting two million participants, but I figured Glenn Reynolds and Moe Lane were right:

I think they’re floating huge numbers—two million? are you kidding?—so that they can paint it as a disappointment if we see “only” hundreds of thousands. . . .

Two million would be about double the turnout of Obama’s inauguration. I don’t believe the Dems really expect that.

Usually, when it comes to politics, if you go with the cynicism, it will get you where you need to be. Not this time. In fact, media estimates do indeed have the 9/12 Tea Party in D.C. pushing two million people—the police estimate, though lower, still had the count at 1.2 million—and from the pictures and the stories, it isn’t hard to believe. At the top of the page, you can see a picture from Mary Katherine Ham, courtesy of the Instapundit.

I liked Professor Reynolds’ comment on the Daily Mail article I linked above:

So maybe I was wrong to be so skeptical. But cut it in half and it’s still a huge number. And this is priceless: “Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event—an ethic they believe should be applied to the government.” Why is the British press more honest in its reporting on this stuff than the American press?

Meanwhile, a reader emails: “I’ll tell you what I find impressive. I’m watching the Fox news video about 15 minutes after the end of the event. The crowd has thinned out enough that you can see the ground and there is not a speck of trash on the grass. Absolutely clean. To contrast, google ‘pictures of litter on the mall after the inauguration.’”

The mind boggles. More people descended on D.C. today to protest the president’s socialist agenda than came for his inauguration—possibly twice as many—and that was a huge event. No wonder Wall Street is confident the government takeover of health care is dead.

This is what death panels look like

and why you shouldn’t believe anyone who tries to tell you that there will be no difference between government bureaucrats and the insurance-company bureaucrats we have now (even as problematic as that current bureaucracy is, even as badly as we need to prune it). Read Michelle Moore’s New Ledger piece on “Rationed Care & The Most Vulnerable Among Us” . . . but be prepared, it’s an emotional read. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that it was Sarah Palin, a mother of five, including a baby with Down Syndrome, who came up with the phrase “death panels”; newborns who aren’t “perfect” and perfectly convenient truly are, even more than the elderly, the most vulnerable among us. They are the ones who most deserve our care—not to be abandoned as “too expensive.”

(Cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin)

A politician to root for

(if you’re a conservative, anyway). According to Rasmussen, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), who was appointed to fill Ken Salazar’s seat when Sen. Salazar stepped down to become Secretary of the Interior, is polling down around 40% against two potential Republican challengers in next year’s election. The thing is, those two challengers are largely unknown in the state—they’re politicians at the city/county level.

That’s why I was interested to discover someone else has thrown his hat in the ring: Luke Korkowski. A lawyer and a small businessman—he runs his own practice, and has an MBA alongside his law degree—who has clerked for the Montana Supreme Court, he has no elective experience, but plenty of real-world experience; were Bob Beauprez or Bill Owens running, the fact that Korkowski’s never served in elected office before might be more of a problem, but no one else in the race on the Republican side has served above the local level, so that’s really not an issue. What matters more is that he has experience in actually running something in the real world, and that he’s a man of character. (You have to appreciate someone whose campaign website confesses to a traffic misdemeanor.) I don’t know him personally, but I know some of his relatives pretty well, and I can attest to this: they’re good people.

Luke Korkowski wouldn’t be the typical member of the U.S. Senate by any means, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing; I like his principles, I like what he stands for, and I like who stands with him. I’ll be pulling for him in 2010.