On the length of presidential campaigns; the size and scope of government; the Cheneys and the GOP; and more
When I was young, people often said, “Why can’t we be more like Europe?” Americans on the left said this. Drove me nuts. These days, you can hear it from the other direction, too. “Why can’t we be more like Orbán’s Hungary?” (or worse).
What’s wrong with “American exceptionalism”?
In the early 1980s, we had an expression, as the Soviet Union was threatening an invasion (another one): “Let Poland be Poland.”
Let America be America, too.
There was something else I heard, way back — something like this: “The British know how to hold an election. It’s six weeks, and it’s over. We go on forever and ever. Why can’t we be like the British?”
I bridled at this, too. “We’re different,” I said. “For one thing, they have a parliamentary system and we have a presidential system. What do you have against American traditions and rites?”
Yeah, but . . .
Joe Biden withdrew from this year’s presidential campaign in late July. The Democrats quickly coalesced around Vice President Harris. Dating from that switch, our general election will be about 15 weeks — well more than twice as long as a British election.
If you want to date the general election from the end of the two conventions, it will be about ten and a half weeks — still a lot longer than a British election.
Isn’t that kind of enough, ten and a half weeks? Do you find it preferable to “the permanent campaign”?
Yeah, I know: We are not a parliamentary country. But one could get used to a campaign of a shorter, saner duration.
• By now, you have probably heard, or read, or read about, Donald Trump’s answer on child care, a classic example of a “word salad.” You can check it out here. Trump was asked, “If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?” Then he made a doozy of a salad.
He said, basically, that the tariffs he will impose on imports will make piles of money for the United States, which we (the federal government) will spend on child care and other nice things.
Took him a while to say that. But, in essence, he did.
Many people have commented on Trump’s answer — its convoluted nature, its saladness. But I have to ask: Should the federal government be in the child-care business? Is this a federal responsibility? I am an “old” conservative, shaped in the previous century. I realize that everything is different now. But . . .
When I raised this issue on Twitter, someone replied, “Why do you hate children?”
Until very recently, there was a basic debate in this country: a debate between Democrats and Republicans, or Left and Right, about the size and scope of government. It seems like that debate is over now. Democrats and Republicans, Left and Right, agree.
I wonder if the debate can be revived, by and by.
• Among Trump’s advisers are ex-Reaganites. To see them nod along, as he extols his tariff scheme, is — amazing. Partisanship is a powerful drug. “Today my party says up? Then I say up. Now it’s saying down? Then I say down.” Etc.
Many people, inside politics and outside, “flip-flop,” or “evolve.” If they do, let it be in the right direction.
• George W. Bush will not endorse Donald Trump. Mike Pence — who served as Trump’s vice president — will not endorse Donald Trump. Dick Cheney — who served as George W. Bush’s vice president — will not endorse Donald Trump. Neither will Cheney’s daughter Liz — who, as recently as 2021, was No. 3 in the GOP House leadership. The Cheneys, in fact, have endorsed Kamala Harris.
Republicans, many of them, are saying, “Traitors! Sell-outs! RINOs!” Trump himself called Dick Cheney a “RINO” (“Republican in name only”). I agree with Trump, in a way. The Republican Party is utterly transformed, inhospitable to the likes of Dick Cheney. It should be noted, however, that Cheney has been a Republican for a lot longer — decades — than Trump has.
If I were a Republican, I might ask: “What have we done, to get Dick and Liz Cheney voting Democratic this year?” But I doubt that many will ask that question.
• David Frum had a striking comment on realignment:
Politics is constantly realigning, endlessly generating new coalitions.
Lifelong Republican Dick Cheney is now supporting VP Harris.
Paid Russian agents and people who think Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War 2 are rallying to Donald Trump.
— David Frum (@davidfrum) September 6, 2024
It must have been surreal for lifelong Democrats — I think of the neoconservative intellectuals, in particular — to start voting Republican in the 1970s and ’80s. It has to be equally surreal for the Cheneys and others now.
• The opening paragraph of a wire-service report:
A Massachusetts medical doctor who punched a police officer during a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol was sentenced Thursday to nine months of imprisonment followed by nine months of home confinement.
That is truly a story of our time. Donald Trump and other Republicans call these convicts “patriots,” “hostages,” and “political prisoners.” If Trump is returned to power, they will be pardonees. (He has pledged this, repeatedly.)
• A report in The Hill begins,
The United States secured the release of 135 political prisoners in Nicaragua on humanitarian grounds, the White House announced Thursday.
To say it quickly and simply: I am grateful to belong to a nation that cares about such things and leads in this way.
Obviously, this is a controversial opinion, or feeling.
• “Who Lost Afghanistan?” That is the title over a piece by Kevin D. Williamson. Its subtitle is, “Trump now criticizes Biden for playing the hand the former president dealt him.” I said pretty much everything I think on the matter in a column published on August 30, 2021: “The Afghan Disaster.” Maybe I could paste one paragraph:
Afghanistan was not a campaign issue in 2020 — either at the presidential or at the congressional level. Why? Because the two parties essentially agreed on withdrawal. Only a few such as Liz Cheney dissented — and they were damned as forever-war–mongers.
• This article made me think of George Bush — the first one, the elder Bush. “Former American number one calls out US Open for ‘not humane’ treatment of players.” Why would I think of Bush? The headline refers to Pam Shriver, with whom Bush played tennis at the White House (and elsewhere, I believe). She and Bush were friends. He played tennis with Chris Evert as well.
He loved the game — and, I think, those who played it.
• Let’s have a little language. Should I have said “refers” up there? “The headline refers to Pam Shriver”? Or should I have said “alludes”? The headline does not name Shriver, true — but I think it is direct enough that “refers” is right. An allusion ought to be . . . murkier, slyer, subtler . . .
• You ever had a concrete? “The extra-thick shake known as the concrete”? I have quoted the New York Times, here. “Ted Drewes Jr., the Frozen Custard King of St. Louis, Dies at 96.” He made his mark. A delicious one.
• I have nothing against soccer (anymore) (I have evolved). I am glad for American kids to play it and enjoy it (I think). Still, I am relieved that they have not stopped playing baseball altogether.
Took a shot in New York City on Saturday morning:
• So, I’m in this bakery, paying, or trying to. I’m waving my credit card over the wrong thing. The lovely young woman behind the counter tells me where to wave it. I say, “Thanks. I’m hopelessly 20th-century. You must spend all day teaching grandpas how to pay.” She smiles and says, “Yes, but I don’t mind. Think how much they taught us!”
Have a good one, my friends.
If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.