Upsets Are Great
How great was University of Maryland Baltimore County’s victory over UVA in the first round of the NCAA tournament? Millions of American were thrilled by this first-ever upset by a #16 seed of a #1 seed. It also seems to be the case that UMBC is an unusually impressive institution of higher education. (There is no joy, however, in Fredville. Fred Barnes is a loyal University of Virginia graduate and faithful basketball fan.)
UMBC’s victory reminded me how very much I like upsets. Why? Partly because they’re fun. But partly because they suggest that all is not pre-determined, that necessity may not control, that contingency exists…and that human freedom is real. Tocqueville warned that democratic ages are particularly susceptible to the temptations of the doctrine of fatalism. Upsets in sports help to save us from that inclination, and thus serve the cause of human and political freedom. So I’ll be rooting for Loyola Chicago this week—as well as for the other #11 seed to make the Sweet Sixteen, Syracuse—and for Nevada, a #7 seed that came from 22 points down in the second half against Cincinnati.
Anyway, because the future isn’t determined, humans enjoy trying to predict what will happen. So here’s a competitions for newsletter readers: Pick the teams that will be in Final Four, the final two, and the winner. The victor in this effort at basketball prophecy will get a suitably fine gift, personally selected by our deputy editor for competitions,Jim Swift. Click here to record your picks.
* * *
ADVERTISEMENT
* * *
Garry Kasparov
Since the Sweet Sixteen round doesn’t begin until Thursday evening, you’ll have time to catch up on your reading. In light of Vladimir Putin’s “re-election” (to say nothing of the poisoning in Great Britain), do read, if you haven’t already, last week’s cover story by the great Garry Kasparov, “The Truth About Putin.” It’s gotten much and well-deserved attention as one of the best big-picture analyses of what Putin’s ascendancy in Russia means for Russia, for the world, and for us.
I also strongly recommend this conversation with Garry I did back in 2016, which stands up very well, Garry puts his analysis of Putin in context, as well as discussing his own remarkable career in chess and in fighting for freedom.
Speaking of conversations, the FCG released one last week with Nicholas Eberstadt on the subject of North Korea. Nick is a friend of TWS and is one of the world’s preeminent experts on North Korea. In this Conversation, Nick discusses the distinctive character of the North Korean regime and the threats it poses to its neighbors and the United States. Drawing on his recent Commentary essay, “The Method in North Korea’s Madness,” Nick explains the rationale behind North Korea’s apparently irrational actions—and how America might craft a sustained policy to address the North Korean threat.
Putin and North Korea–some cheerful reading and viewing for the next week!
* * *
Save the date! Join us at the 2018 Weekly Standard summit. This May 17-20 at the historic Broadmoor resort in Colorado Springs, join Stephen F. Hayes, Fred Barnes, and Michael Warren and special guests Bret Baier and A.B. Stoddard as they discuss the future of American politics. Book your tickets now.
* * *
Gratitude
One indefatigable fighter over the years against the likes of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un was my friend and colleague Thomas “Dusty” Rhodes, who passed away in the first week of March. Dusty was best known perhaps as president of National Review, though I knew him best when we worekd together on the Project for the Republican Future. When we started The Weekly Standard, he greeted us as a fellow fighter for freedom rather than worrying about a bit of competition. (In fact, we’ve both done pretty well over the intervening 22 years.) This was typical of Dusty’s generosity of spirit and remarkable foresight. I wrote a short tribute to Dusty for a memorial symposium at National Review:
I knew Dusty Rhodes only slightly when the voters kicked the Bush-Quayle administration out of the White House on January 20, 1993, and I don’t really recall how we became close enough over the next few months that we joined to start a new organization, the Project for the Republican Future, later that year. But in a way, perhaps, this says something about Dusty: There was no single dramatic moment, no one memorable occasion, when Dusty and I agreed once and for all that we should try to do something to revive the GOP from its exhaustion after twelve years in power under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Dusty did things without excessive drama and obvious exertion. But there we were, with Dusty making possible something I couldn’t have done without him.
As was also typical of Dusty, it was something for which he shunned publicity or credit. Dusty did most of the important work, taking upon himself the task of raising money for a brand-new organization led by a little-known former Quayle chief of staff, joined by a few even younger associates, which claimed it could make a splash and reenergize the Republican party. That little effort turned out relatively well, but it wasn’t obvious that it would in the beginning.
And it’s only in retrospect, having in the intervening years raised money for other groups, that I see how much work Dusty must have put into this. I showed up at dinners he organized and made my pitch, I often would then leave — and, I now realize, Dusty must have had to spend a fair amount of time reassuring these older businessman that this was a gamble worth taking. Surely what reassured them the most was his presence as chairman of the board. They trusted him — and as a result our little Project for the Republican Future was able to do its thing.
In that enterprise, Dusty was an ideal partner. He did much more than raise the money. He gave guidance on all matter of things which he imparted unobtrusively and skillfully. He shared ideas good-naturedly. And he let us, his younger colleagues, pick up the ball and run with it — never even reminding us that there wouldn’t have been a ball without him.
Those two years of the PRF were great fun, for me and I believe for Dusty as well. After that we of course stayed in touch and our friendship remained intact — but we were in different cities with different obligations, and our relationship had nothing like the intensity that being partners in a small organization creates. But we remained friends, and I remained an admirer.
Bill Buckley wrote a fine short book called “Gratitude.” That’s the word that captures my attitude toward Dusty Rhodes — gratitude for what he did and for who he was. And gratitude to have been his colleague and friend.
* * *
Onward.
Bill Kristol
* * *
