In the years I have been writing my column—25!—I have usually tucked language items toward the end. I thought I would begin with one today.
A few days ago, I was talking to a young colleague about a conservative organization. She wanted to know whether it was—still conservative, really. Or had it taken the nationalist-populist route that everyone else has?
I said, “I think it’s still straight.”
This is a word that many of us grew up with. It meant “sound,” “on the level,” “true,” “honest,” “legit,” etc.
These days, the word has mainly a sexual connotation, I think. When you ask, “Is he straight?,” you are not asking, “Can you trust him?”
Anyway, I like this old word, “straight.” I like a lot of old words.
The problem is, one has fewer and fewer people to talk to!
***
Yesterday, I had a discussion with a colleague about the Iran war. Today, I have just one thing to say about it (out of a hundred or so). I think a reporter ought to ask President Trump, “What is the purpose of the war?” I wonder how he’d answer.
***
You may have seen this: “Trump’s Handpicked Arts Commission Approves Gold Coin With His Face on It.” The subheading of that report reads, “Many of America’s founders were fiercely against taking steps that would make its government officials appear like kings, and that included featuring them on the country’s coins.”
Like others, I have written on this subject many times. Last month, I had a piece titled “Hail, Caesar? Hell, No!”
A president should not put his name on another man’s memorial (as in the “Trump-Kennedy Center”). He should not hang a banner of himself on the Justice Department. And he should not put his face on a coin. This is un-American.
Or is it? Isn’t half the country okay with this, or at least blasé about it?
In September last year, I had a column headed “A Weekend in Washington.” Let me paste the beginning of it, please:
On Saturday, I took a bus down from New York to Washington. …
Not far from D.C.’s Union Station—where the buses “dock,” as well as the trains—is the U.S. Department of Labor. This is what confronted me, and everyone else:
I was repulsed. Because I think Trump is unfit to be president? No, because I think such a banner on a federal building is unbefitting of our republic. I mean, leave it to Turkmenistan or some other such place.
If there were a similar banner of Barack Obama or Joe Biden—or Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris—Republicans would howl about it. And I, of course, would be howling right along with them.
“If it weren’t for double standards, there would be no standards at all.” Mona Charen taught me that expression long ago. In our country today, tribalism rules.
Last month, this is what happened at the Justice Department:
Traditionally, the Justice Department has represented the nation at large. It is not supposed to be the president’s personal legal shop. But today?
Fox News had a headline: “Liberals lose their minds over Justice Department banner featuring Trump.” (Article here.) For “lose their minds,” read “criticize rightly.”
If a Democratic president put a banner of himself on the Justice Department, would Republicans “lose their minds” over it? No, they would criticize and denounce it—rightly.
Did you see this, incidentally? “Melania Trump presides at UN Security Council meeting on children in conflict as U.S. attacks Iran.”
I can tell you, whether Mrs. Trump presides over a meeting of the Security Council is a matter of relative indifference to me. But can you imagine if President Obama had had Michelle Obama do this?
I can. Boy, can I.
***
About the below, there are many things to say—I will say one of them, in just a sec:
David B. Cornstein, a businessman, was Trump’s ambassador to Budapest between 2018 and 2020. He said a couple of interesting things. For example, he related what Trump said to Viktor Orbán during a meeting in the White House: “It’s like we’re twins.”
Ambassador Cornstein also said this: “I can tell you, knowing the president for a good 25 or 30 years, that he would love to have the situation that Viktor Orbán has, but he doesn’t.”
Well, more and more, he does.
***
For reasons I will make clear in an article later, I’ve been thinking about The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. (Last night, I attended the premiere of a work of music based on the book.) This led me to think of The Constitution of Liberty (Friedrich Hayek) and Capitalism and Freedom (Milton Friedman).
There are debates about these books, of course. Fierce ones. But aren’t they, essentially, true? I mean, in an almost scientific sense? Doesn’t the record show this?
I think that men and women have rights regardless of material prosperity. So did Smith, Hayek, and Friedman. But, apart from that, hasn’t capitalism, or a free economy, delivered more prosperity to people than socialism, or collectivism?
Is there any real debate about this? Can’t you just—check the record, sort of like checking how the Detroit Tigers did last year?
***
Treat yourself to this article—and check out the possum amid those toys: “A real possum appears among plush toy animals in Australian airport gift shop.”
I regard this as very Australian (in addition to charming).
***
Treat yourself to this article, too—though it’s painful. Awfully human. Moving. A short article by Cass Sunstein about ostracism, with a memory of a classmate of his, during boyhood.
***
End with a little American history?
Have a good day, my friends. And if you feel like subscribing—well, shucks and thanks.
Later.
Onward and Upward is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support the work of the author, become a free or paid subscriber. 👍
"There are debates about these books, of course. Fierce ones. But aren’t they, essentially, true? I mean, in an almost scientific sense?"
Had you asked Cass Sunstein and Noah Smith a decade ago, they'd find plenty to quibble with, insisting that "almost" in "almost scientific" has got to do a lot of heavy lifting! Perhaps because those are the kinds of quibbles it's interesting to have when illiberal threats diminish, when the goods of general economic freedom and impartial rule of law seem ascendant, even if it's hard to resist tinkering around the edges. These days, though? Rather than saying they've changed their own tune, say they've come to better appreciate their disagreements as counterpoint rather than mere clashing, as I have my tune with theirs.
From Noah Smith:
"But I feel like I owe libertarians an apology, for severely underrating their ideology. I was so focused on its theoretical flaws that I ignored its political importance. I concentrated only on the marginal benefits that might be achieved by building on our economic system’s libertarian foundation, ignoring the inframarginal losses that would happen were that foundation to crumble. I had only a hazy, poor understanding of the historical context in which libertarianism emerged, and of the limitations of libertarianism’s most prominent critics."
"Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein) seemed to be fighting old battles, and in important ways to be wrong. With respect to authoritarianism and tyranny, and the power of the state, of course they were right; but still, those battles seemed old.
"But those battles never were old. In important ways, Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein, and Becker and Stigler) were right. Liberalism is a big tent. It’s much more than good to see them under it. It’s an honor to be there with them."
"There are debates about these books, of course. Fierce ones. But aren’t they, essentially, true? I mean, in an almost scientific sense?"
Had you asked Cass Sunstein and Noah Smith a decade ago, they'd find plenty to quibble with, insisting that "almost" in "almost scientific" has got to do a lot of heavy lifting! Perhaps because those are the kinds of quibbles it's interesting to have when illiberal threats diminish, when the goods of general economic freedom and impartial rule of law seem ascendant, even if it's hard to resist tinkering around the edges. These days, though? Rather than saying they've changed their own tune, say they've come to better appreciate their disagreements as counterpoint rather than mere clashing, as I have my tune with theirs.
From Noah Smith:
"But I feel like I owe libertarians an apology, for severely underrating their ideology. I was so focused on its theoretical flaws that I ignored its political importance. I concentrated only on the marginal benefits that might be achieved by building on our economic system’s libertarian foundation, ignoring the inframarginal losses that would happen were that foundation to crumble. I had only a hazy, poor understanding of the historical context in which libertarianism emerged, and of the limitations of libertarianism’s most prominent critics."
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/i-owe-the-libertarians-an-apology
From Cass Sunstein:
"Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein) seemed to be fighting old battles, and in important ways to be wrong. With respect to authoritarianism and tyranny, and the power of the state, of course they were right; but still, those battles seemed old.
"But those battles never were old. In important ways, Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein, and Becker and Stigler) were right. Liberalism is a big tent. It’s much more than good to see them under it. It’s an honor to be there with them."
https://casssunstein.substack.com/p/on-classical-liberalism
From ABC News Australia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyqeCj4mijY