On Trump and Putin; Giuliani and defamation; golfers and their kids; Napoleon, for and against; and more
In the past, Donald Trump has cited Kim Jong-un, with approval. I wrote about this in October: here. Trump is now citing Vladimir Putin the same way, quoting him on “the rottenness of the American political system.”
To read a news article about this, go here. Cagey old dictator that he is, Putin says that he agrees with Trump on the various legal indictments of Trump: They equal persecution.
So, Trump quoted Putin as follows: “It shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.” That’s Kremlin propaganda, all right.
I thought of something that Trump said in 2016, as a candidate for president. A reporter asked him about civil liberties in Turkey. (The dictator, Erdogan, had cracked down on them, viciously.) Trump said, “When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger.”
In the bad old days — pre-Trump — we conservatives referred to this as “moral equivalence” (and we didn’t like it very much).
Obviously, Trump is the hero of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. But when he praises Putin, Kim, Xi Jinping, and other dictators, as he does repeatedly, he does not strike me as very American.
“Un-American” is a very old-fashioned word, with a McCarthyite smell about it. But it occurs to me.
(In October 2020, I wrote a detailed, nearly exhaustive piece called “Trump and Dictators.”)
Which is likelier? That Trump would praise Putin or that he would call for the release of Russian political prisoners, such as Vladimir Kara-Murza? To ask the question is to answer it, isn’t it?
I realize that parties and movements “evolve.” I know that Ronald Reagan doesn’t live here anymore. But, holy smokes.
In a piece for the Wall Street Journal, published Saturday, Kevin D. Williamson wrote,
If you think Ukraine aid has been held up by legitimate concerns about border security, you are not paying attention. Ukraine aid is being held up because a sizable portion of Republicans are Putinists, in and out of the closet to varying degrees . . .
By a long shot, I prefer the uncloseted ones. The out-and-proud ones. It’s the sneaky who are most irksome, I think.
• In his latest campaign speech, Trump did what he has done before: say that illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” I have written about this: here. I cited what Reagan said about blood, in relation to America, and I cited Lincoln, too. There is not much to add.
I might say this, however: Border enforcement is very important. An orderly immigration process is very important. But this “poisoning the blood” business — I don’t think American leaders should talk that way. I think it’s un-American, frankly.
And if that makes me a McCarthyite — so be it.
• “Rudy Giuliani hit with $148M verdict for defaming two Georgia election workers.” To read that story, go here. I have written a fair amount about this case. (I keep talking about things I have already written about. Apologies.) Here, for instance, is an article from June 2022.
Just a few additional words . . .
When I embraced conservatism, long ago — late teens, early twenties — it was for multiple reasons. The GOP was such a freedom party; the conservative movement was such a freedom movement. There were many, many reasons.
One was this: Conservatives insisted that there had to be consequences. Too often, there were no consequences — for bad behavior and illegal behavior.
That struck me as absolutely right. And it still does.
• Above, I wrote, “When I embraced conservatism, long ago — late teens, early twenties . . .” I want to stress: I was in my late teens and early twenties. I am not talking about the 1910s or ’20s . . .
• In a fundraising appeal, Andrew Giuliani wrote,
I’m extremely proud of my Father!
He always has, and forever will defend American values, our Constitution and President Trump.
Well, one-for-three. (That’ll get a hitter into the Hall of Fame, but we’re not talkin’ baseball, at the moment.)
• In an interview, Paul Ryan made a very straightforward statement about Donald Trump (“not a conservative” but “an authoritarian narcissist”). He also made a straightforward statement about two Republican House members — almost the only two — who took a stand against Trump. (If nothing else, said Ryan, they can look at themselves in the mirror.)
Worth a listen:
“Trump’s not a conservative. He’s an authoritarian narcissist … Adam [Kinzinger] and Liz [Cheney] stepped out of the flow and called it out and paid for it with their careers.”
— Former House Speaker Paul Ryan predicts “history will be kind” to former Reps. Kinzinger and Cheney pic.twitter.com/6dqaqSoDqn
— The Recount (@therecount) December 13, 2023
• As you know, the Chinese government puts bounties on the heads of Chinese people in exile — people who are pressing for freedom, democracy, and human rights in China. I know several of them. I admire them no end.
Here is the secretary of state, in a statement on Friday:
The United States denounces Hong Kong authorities’ announcement of a new bounty list targeting overseas democracy advocates, including a U.S. citizen. We reject this attempt to threaten and harass those advocating for freedom and democracy.
— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) December 16, 2023
By the way, is there a difference between the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese government, in Beijing? If there is, it must be a small one.
• John McWhorter is a professor of linguistics at Columbia and a columnist for the New York Times. I will say what I have said before: He has many fine qualities, and one of them is spine — which is maybe a little more than fine. (I was not trying to rhyme.) Spine is rare. Intelligence, industry, style — those are awfully nice, but not necessarily rare. Spine? Rare, and therefore highly valuable.
I thought of this when reading his latest column: “Black Students Are Being Trained to Think They Can’t Handle Discomfort” (here).
Guy has brass ones, in my opinion.
• Every year, there is a father–son golf tournament, and every year, I have a peeve: The announcers refer to Tiger and Charlie together as “the Woods.” No, no. Separately, they are “Woods”: “Tiger Woods” and “Charlie Woods.” Together, they are “the Woodses.”
You don’t keep up with the Jones, you know?
• The tournament is not only father–son, it is also mother–son. (There are other pairings, too.) Will McGee is the son of Annika Sorenstam, one of the greatest golfers who ever lived. (He is also the grandson of Jerry McGee, a fine pro of the 1970s. Won several tournaments.)
Go to 2:26 of this video. Will, age twelve, is asked who is idol in golf is. Look at the look he gives his mom. Priceless.
• A headline: “Wis. woman sneaks gun into MRI; it goes off, shooting her in buttocks.” (Article here.) Shouldn’t that be a story out of Florida?
• Napoleon is back in the news again. Hell, he has not been out of the news since about 1790. The world’s romance with him never ends. Anyway, there is a new movie about him. Max Boot wrote a column on the movie and Napoleon. Balanced, judicious. (The column, I mean, not the movie.) (I am not judging the movie — I haven’t seen it.)
Boot quotes Chateaubriand, calling Napoleon a man “whose genius I admire and whose despotism I abhor.” Boot himself writes,
If Napoleon’s career teaches one thing, it is what the Founding Fathers knew: that no individual — no matter how brilliant — can be entrusted with absolute power. Those in search of soldier/statesmen to admire would do better to look to democratic leaders such as George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George C. Marshall — and of course France’s own Charles de Gaulle. I’d rather watch biopics of their lives than another retelling of the Napoleonic legend.
Me, I’m betwixt and between. I have mentioned this before. Two of my most trusted historians and biographers are Paul Johnson and Andrew Roberts. They have both biographed Napoleon. Johnson is against, very much against — portraying Napoleon as the forerunner to, and model for, the egomaniacal dictators who blighted and bloodied the 20th century. Roberts gives the case for the defense. For admiration.
And when your gurus disagree, what do you do? Think for yourself? Perish the thought.
Anyway, thank you for joining me, my friends, and catch you later.
If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.