The president of the United States has declared flatly that Iran won’t be allowed to acquire the A-bomb, and the vice president declared the same, just the other day: “We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons . . .” Do Bush and Cheney have the means to make good on their declarations? Or will the U.S., and the world at large, simply acquiesce in a nuclearized Iran?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

About Iraq, Cheney said, “The American people will not support a policy of retreat.” Oh? I’m not sure he has a right to be so confident; maybe he should confine himself to saying that the administration will not support such a policy. Cheney further said, “The enemy tactics are barbaric.” On that, we can all agree, I hope.

A language note: Do you say “acquiesce in” or “acquiesce to”? Good speakers and writers say both; I’ve noticed that WFB tends to favor “in”; I myself swing both ways (so to speak).

I’ve spoken many times about Dick Cheney’s new reputation — “new” as of about five years ago. For years and years — all of my political life — he was a universally respected moderate-conservative from the West. He was Ford’s chief of staff, he was a congressman, he was a House leader, he was secretary of defense — universally acclaimed and admired.

But now he is portrayed as Attila the Hun, a “scarier” right-winger than even George W. Bush (who is no right-winger, as we know — but we’re not talking reason here). And why should this be so? Basically, because Cheney thinks it’s important to stand firm against religious fanatics and head-hackers, against the scorchers of populations and the stoners of homosexuals.

Funny, stupid ol’ world.

Anyway, I saw an ad in New York the other day — a poster. It was for a storage company. It said, “Your closet’s so narrow it makes Dick Cheney look liberal.” There was also something about Halliburton on the poster.

As I was saying, funny, stupid ol’ world. And I guarantee that Cheney is less narrow than most of my neighbors on the Upper West Side who have been walking by that ad every day (no doubt chuckling).

I should say something about Tony Blair. For some time, I have anguished my conservative friends in Britain by speaking warmly about Blair — I have driven these poor fellows up the wall. But I can easily explain myself: As a foreigner, I am relatively indifferent to what Blair does domestically; I care about what he does internationally. And, to use one of my least favorite modern phrases — but a phrase I find convenient — he “gets it.”

I’ll tell you something else about Blair: He is not, in my view, a hater. I know I’ve made this point in this column before. I have particularly made it when visiting Davos (for Blair is a regular attendee there). Give you an example: I once heard him say, “Why is it that every time I speak about global warming, it’s the coldest day of the year?” And he spoke with respect about people on the other side — people who are skeptical about global warming, and about the political agenda of environmentalists.

You simply got the impression that Blair didn’t hate you. And you do not get that impression from, say, Al Gore or John Kerry — not if you’re a conservative, you don’t. If you dissent from them on global warming, they denounce you as a destroyer of the earth. Their eyes burn with contempt. Not true of Blair’s — he’d rather understand your concerns and convince you.

Anyway . . .

George W. Bush said about Blair, “He’s a long-term thinker. I have found him to be a man who’s kept his word, which is sometimes rare in the political circles I run in.” Yes. And I like what Charles Moore, the great conservative journalist, said in The Spectator: “When we rediscover what the Labour party is really like, we shall miss him.” Yes again.

I’ll have more to say about Tony B. in future columns, but that’ll do for now.

Oh, hang on, wanted to make a further, small point: In his farewell remarks — or whatever they were — Blair said, “The British are special. The world knows it; in our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.”

Can you imagine if George W. Bush said something similar about the United States? The world would positively explode — I mean, even before the mullahs went nuclear.

A word about the French: After Sarkozy’s election, hundreds of university students in Paris “went on strike.” What does it mean to go on strike, if you’re a student? To refuse to attend class? Isn’t that called hooky? And who cares, really, if these students go on “strike”? Whom are they injuring, other than themselves? (Actually, the less Parisian education they have, the better off they may be.)

But this is not so amusing: Student and other demonstrators shouted, “Sarko, fascist! The people will have your hide!” (A Reuters story is here.) That, I submit, is the authentic voice of Leninism. Note the reference to “the people,” the presumption of speaking for “the people” — and this was after a free and fair election, in which “the people” really and truly spoke! It was the kind of election that these demonstrators would never permit, in their ideal society.

And “The people will have your hide.” Yes, behind these shouters is Leninism, or Jacobinism, or whatever we choose to call it. We are reminded that it never dies; that civilization must be always on guard against it.

And then there is “fascist”: “Sarko, fascist!” All of us who are conservative, or classically liberal, have had to be called fascist. It goes with the territory. And yet it’s no fun. I have been called fascist since I was in college. And those who do it are either malicious or ignorant — sometimes, I guess, they are both (and what a brutal combination: malice and ignorance).

Ordinarily, it does no good to try to reason with people: Fascists are centralizers of power; we are decentralizers. Fascists are nationalizers of industry; we are free-marketeers. Fascists are collectivists; we are anti-collectivists. It is no use to say any of this: “Fascist” is an epithet used by mean or stupid people against those they dislike who are perceived to be “on the right.” One result is that, when a real fascist comes along, there is no word left for him.

How odd that we who want to fight tirelessly against jihadists, or Islamofascists, are called “fascists”! How perverse that we liberal democrats, who wave the flag of universal human values, are called “fascists”! If you follow Jefferson and Locke and Lincoln and Churchill and Reagan — why, you are a fascist, at least according to some (to many).

But one must not whine. The other day, I brought up the “fascist” business with Roger Kimball, the conservative writer and editor. I said, “Are you ever called a fascist?” Brightly — for he is a bright kind of guy — he said, “Early and often!” In the past, I knew of Reagan-supporting Jews who had tattoos on their arms who were denounced as “fascists.” (And when I say tattoos, I’m not talking about the biker kind.)

Anyway . . . an old, old story. But annoying all the same.

I know someone — a British conservative intellectual — who refuses to say “Nazi.” Always, always, to him, it is “National Socialist.” Makes some people very uncomfortable.