Kasparov the Lionhearted, &c.

On a champion in peril; greeting Xi Jinping; political tribalism; great novels; and more

Garry Kasparov in 2021 (Wikimedia Commons)

In the Soviet Union, and, later, Russia, Garry Kasparov was in an unusual position. From 1985 to 2005, he was world chess champion, and therefore a national hero. He was also a dissident. Kasparov left Russia in 2013, because it was getting ever more dangerous for him to be there.

Over here, in America, he founded the Renew Democracy Initiative and its publication, The Next Move. Kasparov is a friend of mine and I am affiliated, I’m grateful to say, with RDI and TNM.

A Kremlin plot to murder Garry and others has been uncovered. A dictatorship such as Putin’s doesn’t care where you live; if you are a dissident, particularly one with influence, you are in that dictatorship’s crosshairs.

Garry wrote about this two days ago, here. Today, I will say merely this: He has stuck his neck out, for the cause of freedom, democracy, and human rights. He could have rested on his chess laurels. He did not. I admire him immensely and consider him invaluable.

He has his enemies, in Russia (obviously), the United States (less obviously?), and elsewhere. He has earned them. Sticking up for freedom, democracy, and human rights is not for the fainthearted. Garry’s heart is strong and big.

***

It should go without saying that democratic governments often have to maintain diplomatic relations with dictatorships, even monstrous ones, genocidal ones. We have relations with China, for example. But do we have to be lovey-dovey with them? No, not at all.

Here is a tweet from President Trump a week ago:

Our president has the kindest, tenderest words about Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un. About democratic leaders—Free World leaders—practically none.

In an interview with Bob Woodward during his first term, Trump said, “It’s funny. The relationships I have—the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them. You know? Explain that to me someday, okay?”

Last week, I had a piece in which I took the liberty of issuing a reminder:

Who is Xi Jinping? He is the boss of the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP imprisons, tortures, and kills some of the best people in China—democrats striving for basic freedoms. The CCP is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. (This was the determination of the U.S. State Department in 2021.) The CCP has crushed Tibet and threatens to do the same to Taiwan.

This government, the Chinese government, is a mortal enemy of the United States and all free countries.

But, again, you have to engage in diplomatic relations with them. The question is: How should those relations be conducted?

In 2011, Hu Jintao made a state visit to Washington. Along Pennsylvania Avenue, U.S. flags and Chinese flags were flown side by side, which nauseated some of us. We cursed President Obama for it.

Have you seen this, from last week?

“Over the top” is the politest thing you could say about that scene. If Chinese political prisoners, or Uyghurs in the gulag, saw it: what would they think about us Americans?

Or as Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet-era dissident, said (I will paraphrase): “As Western governments go about their business, doing the necessary, they should occasionally pause to wonder: How will it look to the boys in the camps?”

***

I think I have read more about tribalism in the last ten years than in all the other years of my life—and I was an anthropology major. The tribalism of blood, I think I understand (even if I don’t like it). But the strength of political tribalism astonishes me.

A report from the Wall Street Journal begins,

The Trump administration used federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security to finance a set of controversial pro-Trump advertisements that recently began airing on television, according to people familiar with the matter.

The taxpayer money used to fund the ads that started airing last week came from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an arm of DHS that oversees the Border Patrol and customs and immigration at airports, the people said.

If a Democratic president did this, every Republican and conservative in the country would call for an impeachment inquiry. But political tribalism has an almost mesmeric power.

I have learned this, as I think many others have as well.

***

By now, you have probably seen this photo, quickly famous, or infamous:

You can read about the matter elsewhere, and I will be brief: Senator Eric Schmitt (R., Mo.), who is the guy sitting in the middle, was questioning Jack Smith, the onetime special counsel overseeing criminal investigations into Donald Trump. The guy on the right, with his right arm on the poster, is Senator John Kennedy (R., La.).

Is “poster” the right word? It is one of those blow-up things that public officials use.

Those two faces—Schmitt’s and Kennedy’s—say a lot. The senators thought they had trapped Smith in perjury. A moment of triumph! It would live in Fox News immortality! But they’d gotten it all wrong and got egg on their faces.

I have roughly a hundred points to make about this episode, but I will make just one of them. Schmitt, I expect little of. He “is what he is”—basically, another guy in the bar. A political blowhard and lout. I expect he will be reelected forever.

But Kennedy? He is splendidly educated and has many talents—intellectual, verbal, etc. He could have been a genuine statesman, a “lion of the Senate.” Instead, he chose to be a blowhard and lout: just another Fox troll, with cornpone.

Our current political era is, among other things, diminishing. It makes people very small. Or, put differently, and better: it leads people to make themselves very small.

***

I’ve got a ton more for you, but I have to run, and so do you. Maybe I could throw a music review at you: here. It’s of a concert by the New York Philharmonic, a gala affair. It was introduced by Alec Baldwin. I had a conversation with him, beforehand. I’ll tell you about it later. Kind of interesting (nothing political).

***

A little language? I’ve been hearing, and reading, “core tenets.” The thing about tenets: they are core. No need for the “core.”

***

On social media, I wrote,

A thought (not original): Many of us read great novels when we’re in high school and college—and have relatively little experience of life. We would understand and appreciate them a lot more at age, say, 50. The system seems backward in this respect!

This little jotting received many responses, and interesting ones, too. Would you like to respond? Send me a note? I would welcome it: mail@jaynordlinger.com.

Thank you so much for reading, and subscribing, if you can/want. And corresponding! Have a good weekend. Back at you soon (“not a promise but a warning,” as a friend of mine would say).