On dictators and holidays; Churchill vs. Hitler; the Kremlin line; a new city flag; and more
Did you see this headline? “Maduro decrees Christmas will start in October as Venezuela cracks down on dissent.” It is a surprising headline — but also unsurprising. I will explain in a moment. “Maduro,” as you know, is Nicolás Maduro, the dictator of Venezuela. The article under the headline — a CNN report — tells us the following:
“September smells like Christmas!” Maduro said in his weekly television show on Monday, to the apparent delight of his audience.
“This year, and to honor you all, to thank you all, I am going to decree the beginning of Christmas on October 1.”
Maduro’s decree — not the first of its kind, but the earliest — comes as Venezuela grapples with the fallout from July’s presidential election, which saw Maduro claim a third term despite global skepticism and an outcry from the country’s opposition movement.
Yes. Dictators like to play around with holidays. That is why the headline is not surprising (though it points to something bizarre, no doubt). In Cuba, Fidel Castro banned Christmas in 1969. (Castro was the spiritual father of chavista rule in Venezuela.) He did not allow its public observance again until 1998.
Christmas is not the only holiday played with. Allow me to quote from a column of mine in February 2009:
Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan strongman, does a lot of draconian things. He also does some silly things. But sometimes the silly merges with the draconian. Let me give you an example.
He canceled Valentine’s Day — or rather, he postponed it. This year, Valentine’s Day fell on a Saturday, and he was having his big referendum on Sunday. So he imposed a dry law starting on Friday afternoon — no tippling with the vote coming up. And he postponed Valentine’s Day, declaring that all of the following week would be Valentine’s Day, or a “week of love.”
“We’re going to be in battle,” he said. “After achieving our great victory, the week of love begins.” Yes, “I’m giving you a week in exchange for a day. That’s not bad, is it?”
This is all harmless and even amusing. Right? Except you remember that a hallmark of strongmen — strongmen of the worst kind — is tampering with the calendar: Year Zero and all that. And if you can cancel, or postpone, Valentine’s Day, you can do a lot more, too, in your dictatorship.
Just sayin’.
I was, yes, and am.
• In the last few days, many people have become acquainted with Darryl Cooper, a “self-proclaimed ‘historian,’” to quote an article in the Jerusalem Post. That article will give you the tawdry details. The Holocaust was accidental, Cooper seems to say. “Millions of people ended up dead.” They did.
Moreover, Churchill was the “chief villain” of World War II, not Hitler, says this Cooper.
I am well familiar with this view and have known people who hold it. They are readers of John Charmley and David Irving, among others.
Shouldn’t all questions be open? Shouldn’t we debate Churchill vs. Hitler, even in 2024? I think of Bill Buckley, who liked to paraphrase Chesterton: “The purpose of an open mind is to close it on some things.”
Let me provide a further taste of Mr. Cooper’s work:
You know what the “Jewish problem” was? They existed. That is Israel’s problem, too, and Ukraine’s: They exist. And there are many, many people who want them not to exist.
Over the years, I have noticed something: People who are anti-Churchill are also anti-Lincoln. This first came to my attention in college. The overlap is not total — not 100 percent — but it is significant. Show me someone who is anti-Churchill and he is also apt to be anti-Lincoln.
(The reverse is true as well: Churchillians and Lincolnians tend to be the same people. I, for one, am in this category.)
A couple of days ago, a distinguished professor asked me, “Why?” He said that he had noticed the same phenomenon: People who are anti-Churchill are also anti-Lincoln. But why? This is my best shot, in a few words:
Sympathy for the Confederacy and the Axis. Contempt for liberal democracy. Hatred of the “elites” who admire Lincoln and Churchill. Resentment of that which is “respectable.” “Evil, be thou my good” (Paradise Lost).
Also, distrust of “the narrative.” This is what someone on social media said to me when I was discussing this general question: “We don’t believe the narrative.” Ah, but they believe some.
That men landed on the moon is a narrative, they say. But they believe their own “narrative”: that the moon landings were faked.
• Here is an article titled “Succession: The Secret Lives of Vladimir Putin’s Sons.” Putin’s family is very, very murky. How many children, and with whom? The family of many a dictator is very, very murky.
Years ago, I wrote a book called “Children of Monsters.” The chapter on Fidel Castro begins like this:
Castro has ten children — or fifteen or more. No one knows for sure, except for the dictator himself, probably. In 1993, Ann Louise Bardach, interviewing Castro for Vanity Fair magazine, asked him how many children he had. At first, he declined to answer. Then he said, “Almost a tribe” — which must be one of the few charming or true things he has ever said. His state media are forbidden to mention his family. People outside Cuba know more about his family than people inside. And even the most knowledgeable outsiders run into limits. In 2000, the Miami Herald published an article headed “Castro’s Family.” The subheading was, “Fidel’s private life with his wife and sons is so secret that even the CIA is left to wonder.” It’s not entirely clear, by the way, that Castro has a wife.
• In the Soviet era, information warfare was very important. It still is. I have written about this many, many times in the last several years. The latest? “U.S. Accuses Russia of Spending Millions to Influence American Voters.” That is a report in the Wall Street Journal. “Vladimir Putin’s inner circle has been directly involved in covert propaganda efforts, Justice Department says.”
What to say, at this juncture? A few things. I recall the words of Phillips O’Brien, who is a professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews. He and I recorded a podcast last January. He said, “The Russians have gained far more geopolitical leverage out of the millions they’ve spent on information warfare than the billions they have spent on the military.”
Some people parrot the Kremlin line for free. Some people are paid to parrot it. Some of these people would parrot it even if they were not paid.
An early figure at National Review — was it Max Eastman? — said something like this: “They may not be working for the KGB. But if they were, how would their behavior be any different?”
When I was growing up, plenty of people repeated the Kremlin line, brazenly. They were on the left. Now the repeaters, the parrots, are on the right — if “left” and “right’ mean anything anymore, in this context. I can imagine Angela Davis, sitting in her armchair, thinking, “They stole my gig!”
• Sometime last year, I was talking with a young friend of mine, a student at Barnard College, here in New York City. She said, “No one on the subway pays a fare. They all duck under the turnstile or something. It’s almost like you’re a chump for paying.”
I have been meaning to write an article about this subject — a very important subject. But now Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe, has done it, and done it very well. I am so glad: “The high cost of letting people evade transit fares.” The subheading of the column reads, “When standards erode, communities do too.” Oh, yes.
• Lord knows I love college football. (I grew up in Ann Arbor.) George F. Will — does not. He is very, very sour about college football, as proven in his latest column. My problem? I believe Will is right.
• Journalists like to say, “I’ve written a cover story.” No, they haven’t. They’ve written a story. An editor has decided to feature it on the cover, and not another of the stories in the same issue. But they’re all stories.
• About the below jotting, I’d like to make a language point:
I indict anyone using “myself” that way. Is there a more abused word in our language, in this barely literate age?
• “Ann Arbor has unveiled a new official city flag,” an article begins. It continues,
Mayor Christopher Taylor announced the winner of the city’s flag-design contest at the City Council meeting Tuesday night . . .
“A great city deserves a great flag,” Taylor declared . . .
Does it? Aren’t there cities — even great ones — without their own flag? Is this a “thing”?
In any case, my curmudgeonly self likes the flag well enough. It is green and blue, with an “environmentalist” “vibe.” Fair enough, I suppose: We have “Arbor” in our name.
(One of the founders of the town had a wife named “Ann.” “Ann’s Arbor” was the original name of the town. Or so I learned, way back . . .)
• End on a little music? For my “New York chronicle,” in the September New Criterion, go here. Lots of composers, performers, and arguments are in play. I’ll see you later, dear readers. Thanks.
If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.