Roger Kimball

Anyone who has perambulated through the groves of academe has encountered dumb smart people. They are clever, intellectually nimble, but they lack what Aristotle called φρόνησις and what the rest of us call “street smarts” or “practical wisdom.” In academia, dumb smart people often appear to be merely quaint or eccentric. In the realm of politics, they appear first as an exciting novelty, then as a destructive if naive force, cynically manipulated by the very people they hoped to replace.  In 1992, the billionaire Ross Perot epitomized the dumb smart political actor when he ran as an Independent candidate against George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He pretended to provide an alternative to both Bush and Clinton. In reality, Perot guaranteed Clinton’s victory.

What now? After the daring and what everyone is describing as a “flawlessly executed” attack by the United States on Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities Saturday night, Macbeth’s words must be on the minds of many: “If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well / It were done quickly.” Things did not work out so well for the Thane of Cawdor, as Macbeth then was. But even though his attack was not “the be-all and the end-all” he wanted, everyone who wishes for peace must second his opening argument.

Political imbrioglios often take on the character of theological controversy. Back in the 6th century, the wise men of the Western Church, pondering the Trinity, decided to make an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Holy Spirit, they determined, proceeded not simply “ex Patre” (“from the Father”) but also “filioque,” “and from the son.” No big deal, right? Wrong. For reasons I shall refrain from dilating on now, the Eastern Church repudiated the addition. Controversy raged for centuries. Indeed, what became known as the “filioque controversy” culminated, in AD 1054, in the Great Schism between the Eastern Church and the West. For most of us mortals, the controversy now seems arcane, not to say bootless. But at the time it was a matter of life and death.

Today, you can choose to follow your inner adolescent and search for one of the Soros-funded “No Kings” protests cropping up wherever the number of Democrats is high and the collective IQ is low. Alternatively, you can pop down to the draining swamp of Washington, DC and watch the United States Army commemorate its 250th anniversary with a snazzy military parade among patriotically inclined Americans.If you think I have loaded the dice somewhat with charged rhetoric, you’re right. The whole “No Kings” wheeze is just anxious left-wing grandstanding that is as desperate as it is ineffectual. There is no Saint George Floyd around to act as a pretext this time.I have no doubt that those protests will be lavishly covered by the Irrelevant Media Complex.

Whom do you suppose wrote this: “Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false”?  The one person I can assure you did not write it is its supposed author, former president Joseph R. Biden, who by the way is suffering from metastatic prostate cancer.  Moreover, pace Biden’s suggestions, it is clear that he did not sign many of the myriad “pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations” issued over his name.

The commentariat is awash with experts on prostate cancer. What precipitated this sudden acquisition of specialized medical expertise? Why, the announcement that former president Joe Biden is suffering from stage four of the big PC which, the news reports are gasping, has metastasized to his bones. Let me pause to join Donald Trump in expressing my best wishes to the former president for “a fast and successful recovery.” Let me also recall how suddenly the world became populated with epidemiologists after the Wuhan flu led Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx and the entire bureaucratic establishment to discover their inner totalitarian hankerings. The revelation about Biden’s health is a sort of synecdoche for a much larger universe of pain.

In the matter of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his all-expenses-paid sojourn in El Salvador, there has been a goodly quota of posturing all around. Or, rather, there has been understandable outrage and intransigence on the part of the Trump administration. There has also been wild, almost comic posturing on the part of Democrats and their megaphones held up by the media. There are 195 countries in the world today. It is unfortunate, or at least complicating, that the Trump administration settled on El Salvador as the country to which to deport Garcia, whose wife was granted a temporary protective order against him in 2021, according to Maryland court records. Garcia has admitted to clambering into the US illegally in 2012, though he has never been convicted of any crime.

When it comes to Donald Trump and his achievements during his first 100 days, who are you going to believe, the New York Times or your lyin’ eyes?  By “the New York Times,” incidentally, I do not mean just that one woke media outlet masquerading as a source of news.  No, I take the Times as a metonym for the entire propaganda industrial complex, the giant dispenser of politically correct nostrums and seismically sensitive Keeper of the Narrative.  Thus it is that the Times is a reliable dispenser not of that sort of information we denominate “news” – that is, what is actually happening and who is involved in making it happen.

I predict that by the time you read this, the press-fabricated entertainment known as “Signalgate” will be but a memory – a fond memory for those addicted to round-the-clock media frenzy, department of anti-Trump shenanigans. For the more responsible members of the populace, it will seem like an overheard squabble among angry children in some forlorn government-funded schoolyard.  What, after all, was “Signalgate?”  From one perspective, it was like a piranha-infested pool into which chunks of meat or perhaps a hapless Bond villain had been tossed. The resulting frothy tumult made it impossible to see what was happening. You only knew that the fish were frantic and the half-eaten protein shredded.   Such things happen from time to time in America.

When Winston Churchill saw the portrait commissioned by parliament for his 80th birthday, he called it “filthy and malignant” and said it made him look “half-witted.” The picture, painted by Graham Sutherland, was soon whisked off to Chartwell, Churchill’s estate in Kent. It moldered there unseen for some years before Churchill’s private secretary ferried it to a secluded cottage and burnt the wretched object. Clemmie, Churchill’s long-suffering wife, approved of the conflagration. A similar fate could fall upon Sarah Boardman’s portrait of Donald Trump, which has been hanging in the Colorado Capitol for the last six years. Trump hates that picture, calling it “purposefully distorted” and taking to Truth Social to vent his spleen.

In the matter of Donald Trump v. Leviathan, let me begin by stipulating that Sir Thomas More was right in A Man for All Seasons when he remonstrated with his future son-in-law William Roper.  Roper was urging More to arrest the scheming Richard Rich, whose machinations would eventually lead to More’s execution. But, More points out, Rich had broken no law.   William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?