George W. Bush with the bullhorn at Ground Zero. Bill Clinton at the memorial service in Oklahoma City. Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster. Barack Obama singing Amazing Grace at Mother Emmanuel Church after the massacre there.
These were iconic moments; we all remember them. They united the country, a difficult thing to do these days…as the reaction to Joe Biden’s courageous, and timely, visit to Ukraine showed this week, another demonstration of the boorish and unpatriotic show-biz populism that has infected the Republican Party. Here are some thoughts on Ukraine and the train derailment in East Palestine—and the tricky business of politicians showing, or not showing, at scenes of moment and disaster:
Ukraine has been a spiritually crucial event, a real boost, for the forces of democracy around the world. Remember a year ago? It was roundly believed that democracy was in big trouble, that authoritarians and their illiberal democracies were on the march from Russia to Hungary to the United States. Putin was admired, thought to be a tactical genius—remember, he played chess and poor Joe Biden only played checkers?—as per the noted geostrategist, Donald Trump: “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Brilliant! A year later, Putin seems a toxic dunderhead. And so do his generals. He has destroyed a good portion of his armed forces. His economy is in tatters. Russians are fleeing the motherland in droves. He is even paying people to attend his speeches: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1738016/russia-flood-moscow-stadium-putin-war-ukraine. And the message at that rally? America is weak because of its culture wars. That should have great meaning in Vladivostok. Putin has united Eastern Europe against him, brought NATO to his Finnish and Swedish borders; indeed, changed the very posture of NATO as Poland and other anti-Russia states have prodded Germany toward a more aggressive stance…And has begun to wean Europe off the need for Russian natural gas. Putin has gotten closer to China—and raised the strategic possibility that if his regime collapses, China will quietly assume de facto control of a broad swath of Asian Russia. It could happen…is it any less plausible than the flight of the Stans when the Soviet Union collapsed? (Senator Bill Bradley predicted that would happen. I thought he was crazy. I can be “pretty savvy,” too.)
Meanwhile, Joe Biden looks very good when it comes to Ukraine. Even a lot of Republicans say so. He hasn’t wavered. He has led. He has augmented Ukraine’s arsenal at a pace that allowed Germany to be dragged along and NATO to remain whole. The timing and skill of his Kyiv visit was perfect—at a moment when the world was gathered nearby at the Munich Conference and could gossip about it. But more important, he has allowed the spectacle of freedom-loving Ukranians standing up against a brutal bully to be an example for America. It may also have given China some second thoughts about Taiwan. The fight against tyranny has always been among the most stirring of human endeavors. The war has changed America, too—the heroic spectacle has made our own right-wing authoritarians seem less authoritative, and the freedom-lovers among us seem stronger. Trump and his species had a tough election in 2022. The previously clever Ron DeSantis bumbled all over the policy lot when asked about Ukraine. Marjorie Taylor Greene was, well, Marjorie Taylor Greene…criticizing Biden for going to Ukraine not East Palestine for train wreck, then proposing a lazy red-state secession. This crude woman is the chair of the House UnAmerican Caucus.
Speaking of East Palestine—redolent name, by the way—we’ve seen a series of American politicians demonstrate the perils of Being There. The previously impeccable Pete Buttigieg had a rough go over his no-show. Donald Trump tossed paper towels at the locals—wait, no, that was Puerto Rico, this time it was Trump-branded water. Neither side looked very good. The fact is, politicians who wander into disaster zones are often more trouble than they’re worth. They can inspire, but they can also get in the way of the cleanup. The East Palestine derailment is serious business and should point the way to even more bipartisan infrastructure work. The Times has the complexities here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/us/politics/east-palestine-politics.html?smid=url-shareB
The whole business has illuminated a previously undiscovered law of politics: Being There—going to a war or disaster site—to make domestic partisan hay is never a good idea. It is cheesy in the extreme. In fact, my favorite example of Being There was when George H.W. Bush decided not to. He wouldn’t go to Berlin for the destruction of the Wall…didn’t want to “rub [the Russians’] noses in it.” Too bad the Russians—that Marjorie Taylor Greene of countries—didn’t take a lesson in real class when it was offered them.
Also of Interest:
The New York Post is usually reliable for its sports coverage and as a window into the perverse obsessions of putative American Citizen Rupert Murdoch and his minions. But right now it’s on a worthy campaign to create more charter schools in New York. Here’s the reality: charter schools cost less per-pupil and the educational results are stronger. What’s not to like? Well, the United Federation of Teachers doesn’t like them. They have a simply brilliant argument: charter schools get better results so let’s have fewer of them. Here’s the link:
I remember watching Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech—he never used the word—in 1979 and thinking: that’s one damn honest piece of work. It was a warning against the growing tide of American intellectual and social sloppiness. The general press reaction was that it was a disaster. They were wrong, but effective in furthering Carter’s public nosedive. (The big problem, I think, was that Carter was a too much a sourpuss…his smile was studied; the country needed an actual optimist like Ronald Reagan.) I was thinking of celebrating the speech here as a tribute to a failed President but an exceedingly decent man, but the estimable Peggy Noonan—Reagan’s speech writer—got there first in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/jimmy-carters-malaise-speech-aged-well-ex-president-citizen-habitat-for-humanity-address-white-house-polarization-3db889d1?st=xj2837dy58b2mn8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I have an existential problem: I am a New York Mets fan and have been since they announced the team was coming to the Polo Grounds in 1962. The Polo Grounds—what a name for a ballpark, what a barn!—was a magical place: my dad would take me to watch Willie Mays patrol center field for the Giants there until the rich guys decided to take my team away in 1957 (and the Brooklyn Dodgers, too). I couldn’t root for the Yankees; so I waited—not an easy thing for a 10-year-old. When the Mets arrived in ‘62, I went to 20 home games; they won five, but lost the rest in creatively disastrous ways. I was hooked. I learned to love a loser—Cub fans, you know what I mean—and spent the off-season studying the Mets minor league stats, searching for young players who would come to save the day. They came, once or twice, in 1969 and 1986. It was an immense pleasure to root for a team that developed from the bottom up, the hard way, the honest way. But now we have a hedge-fund owner who can buy a championship as if it were a box of crackerjack. It’s like rooting for the Yankees. I remain a Mets fan. I will cheer their every victory, but still…
If you want to spread the word about Sanity Clause, push this button
And if you want to join the Sanity Caucus, you can subscribe here. It’s free, for now:
Let’s not forget the ‘73 pennant winners