On J. D. Vance and people without children; a question for Harris and Trump; a stamp for Alex Trebek; and more
There is a line from J. D. Vance that gets applause from his audiences. The wording changes, but the gist is the same. On one occasion, he said this: “Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children.”
Vance continued, “When you go to the polls in this country, as a parent, you should have more power, you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic, than people who don’t have kids. Let’s face the consequences and the reality.”
He then said, “If you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.”
Note that Vance said “maybe.” A dangerous streak of moderation?
Another time, he put it like this:
“We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. It’s just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC. The entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does that make any sense, when we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”
When it comes to “corporate oligarchs,” you may want to have a look at Peter Thiel and the role he played in Vance’s election to the Senate. But I would like to focus on another point.
You and I have seen a little of life. There are people without children because they choose not to have children. There are people without children because they have been unlucky — unlucky in securing a spouse, unlucky in fertility, etc.
In my view, people with children should not gloat about it or congratulate themselves for it. They should be grateful.
There are people with children who really don’t care very much about those children. Who don’t even see them. There are people without children who care very much about children. There is a variety of human life.
There are people with children who care very much about our country and its future. There are people without children who care as well. There are other people — with children and without — who seem not to care very much at all.
I think of the issue of our federal budget deficit and national debt — and the relation of those things to our entitlement programs. Many people think that reform of our entitlements is an urgent necessity. Our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren should not be saddled with crushing debt. We should look to tomorrow, not merely to today. This is not merely an economic issue. It is a moral one.
You’ve heard J. D. Vance on the subject. You’ve heard his line on entitlement reform. Here is what he said to Steve Bannon: “There are people who would cut Social Security, throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht?”
In this one statement, Vance combined longstanding Democratic Party propaganda with current Kremlin propaganda. And this is a conservative? A Republican?
One of the reasons I rejected the Democrats, years ago, is that they tended to pit Americans against one another: rich against poor; black against white; employee against employer. To pit people with children against people without — I think this is pretty rotten.
But the demagogue is usually successful in politics.
• Someone ought to pose Kamala Harris and Donald Trump a question — the same question. “The federal budget deficit is enormous. The national debt is enormous. Our entitlement programs are headed toward insolvency. Are you concerned about this? If so, what do you propose to do about it?”
(Trump was president for four years and showed little interest. The same is true in a Biden-Harris administration.)
From what I can tell, these matters of fiscal stability and instability don’t move voters at all. No one wants to look to tomorrow. Tomorrow is someone else’s problem. As Senator Mitch McConnell told President Trump, no politician ever lost office for spending more money.
Democrats have always accused entitlement-reformers of wanting to throw our grandparents into poverty. Now Republicans such as J. D. Vance make the same accusation. Who is left to tell the public the truth?
(In January 2023, I wrote a biggish piece on this subject. For those interested, it is here.)
• I know where President Biden stands on Ukraine and Russia — and on Putin generally. I know where Trump and Vance stand. I don’t know, frankly, where Harris stands. Yes, she has been part of the Biden administration. And a veep follows the company line. But now she is No. 1 on the ticket, not No. 2. What are her beliefs in this area?
Moreover, I wonder about her core beliefs concerning Israel.
Kamala Harris is famous, obviously, but at the same time little known. That is my impression, in any event.
• Some Republicans are itching to make Harris’s sexual past an issue. I hear it all around me. If they ever had a leg to stand on, Republicans cut it off years ago, with their embrace of Trump. Good Lord.
I think of Dr. Johnson — who was sick of hearing yelps of liberty from the drivers of slaves. I myself can’t bear yelps of morality from the adorers of Trump.
Spare me.
• A report in the New York Times begins, “Fatah and Hamas signed a joint statement in Beijing on Tuesday in a grand show of unity . . .” I’m reminded of an old joke — a dark one: “A two-state solution, sure: one for Fatah, one for Hamas.”
• Governor Jared Polis (D., Colo.) was asked about the possibility of his serving as Kamala Harris’s running mate. His answer: “Look, if they do the polling and it turns out that they need a 49-year-old balding gay Jew from Boulder, Colorado, they got my number.”
A little humor leavens politics (as it does other sectors of life).
• Congressman Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) made a return visit to Fox News. “It’s the only way my parents will see me,” he said.
• Want a jolt of athletic joy? “Watch Ant beat Steph in playful Team USA half-court contest.” “Steph,” as you know, is Steph Curry, of the Golden State Warriors. “Ant” is Anthony Edwards, of the Minnesota Timberwolves. They are on the U.S. Olympic team.
• The U.S. Postal Service has produced a stamp in honor of Alex Trebek. Trebek, as you know, was the host of Jeopardy! It is a thing of beauty, the stamp, in my opinion:
(For an article on the subject, go here.)
• My colleague Luther Ray Abel wrote a sketch of André Jacque, who is a Republican politician in Wisconsin, and a character. The man’s name is interesting: He keeps the accent in “André” but loses the “s” in “Jacques.” How did that happen?
(Some of us are fascinated by names, especially names in America, where things get real quirky.)
• I cast my eye on an essay by D. H. Lawrence, “Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine.” Listen: “The dandelion in full flower, a little sun bristling with sun-rays on the green earth, is a nonpareil, a nonsuch. Foolish, foolish, foolish to compare it to anything else on earth. It is itself incomparable and unique.”
This made me think of an old debate: Does “unique” mean “one and only”? Can “unique” be modified? “More unique,” “less unique”? I don’t think so. “Unique” is “unique.” One of a kind.
(Yet I still believe in “a more perfect Union” . . .)
• I’ve been reading about Bob Newhart. Listening to him, watching him. The great comedian died last week at 94. He and Don Rickles were best friends — maybe improbably. Their styles, their personalities, were different. But they loved each other.
About their contrasting styles, Don had a line: “Bob’s kind of humor is cerebral. I have a kind that gets laughs.”
So much fun, those guys.
• At Lincoln Center, in New York, there was a movie premiere. Many of the attendees were in costume. There was an air of festivity, and an air of mutual understanding. I snapped a photo as I walked by:
• The below video, I shot from the balcony of David Geffen Hall (home of the New York Philharmonic). I was attending a concert. It was intermission. The people groovin’ on the plaza, I think, were having a better time than the people in the hall . . .
Thanks for joining me, my friends. I’ll catch you soon.
If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.