My whole life (virtually), I’ve heard people in the political arena ask: “How should we talk about abortion?” Now, I realize that how you discuss something is very important. But first you have to figure out what you believe. So my answer — which is maybe not very useful to politicians — is: Think deeply about the issue. Figure out what you believe. And then state it, as well as you can. And let the chips fall where they may.

Here’s the catch: You may lose an election. But in this blessed and free land — your life will go on, and you will find opportunities to be of service, if that’s what you want to be.

(A lot of people run for office in order to “be somebody,” true. Some others, however, genuinely want to accomplish things they deem important to public life.)

• What do I think about abortion? I’m glad you asked (not that you did). If interested, consult an essay I wrote last year: “Coming to Grips with Abortion.”

• Here is an open secret: A lot of people who said they were pro-life, or anti-abortion, over the years, don’t give a fig about the issue. It was just a matter of political correctness. “My party, or my tribe, says this. Therefore, I say it.” What we are seeing today, now that Roe has been overturned, is a separation of the men from the boys.

What do you believe about abortion? Do you think it ought to be banned, or largely banned? Permitted, or largely permitted? Is it a matter for the states, alone? Or should there be a national policy, coast to coast?

Not easy (for many).

• A significant moment in modern American conservatism came in 1968 — and again in 1972. I’m talking about the campaigns of George C. Wallace for president (especially the first). Wallace titillated a lot of the Right. William F. Buckley Jr. said no. No way. No to the populist demagoguery that Wallace represented, and specialized in (and was so very good at).

Some people around WFB said yes — yes to Wallace. “Sure, he’s a big-government Democrat, but all his cultural resentments are right.”

On Friday, George F. Will had a highly interesting column: “Trump and today’s repulsive politics echo George Wallace in 1968.”

Is there any doubt that, if he were alive and kicking, Wallace would be a Republican and a star of Fox News, CPAC, Turning Point, etc.? And that flocks of conservative scribblers and intellectuals would be “anti-anti-Wallace”?

• A couple of years ago, I had an essay called “Voices from Philistia.” Its subheading was, “Notes on the politics and rhetoric of populism: then, now, and always.” I took my heading from WFB — who once responded to a populist critic with a column titled “A Voice from Philistia.”

Anyway, here is an excerpt from my piece, citing a certain Alabama governor:

Huey Long was maybe the outstanding populist and demagogue of the 20th century in America. George C. Wallace was not far behind him. There was a time, believe it or not, when briefcases were considered fancy. They were new, and newfangled — and excellent fodder for Wallace. Listen to him, rilin’ up the crowd:

“Up there in New York City, they walk around with briefcases, as if they had somethin’ impo’tant in them. You wanna know what’s in those briefcases? Why, nothin’ but a peanut-butter sandwich!”

• Here is a statement to please no one — no one at all: A militant, punitive wokeness at our corporations and universities is making Trumpites, or Trump sympathizers, out of people who should know better but whose nerves have been rubbed raw.

I, personally, know such people, and have ample testimony from strangers as well.

• In the New York Times, an article is headed “How Ron DeSantis Lost the Internet.” It is very interesting, telling a tale of our time — not just of the 2024 GOP presidential primaries but of our overall political time. I imagine some DeSantis people will read it and, publicly, say, “Fake news! Elite media!” etc., but inwardly acknowledge, “Yup.”

The article says that some of the DeSantis campaign’s “most visible efforts — including videos employing a Nazi symbol and homoerotic images — have turned off donors and drawn much-needed attention away from the candidate.”

If donors were “turned off,” that makes me feel better about the “donor class.”

Another excerpt: “In June, the war room began creating highly stylized videos stuffed with internet jokes and offensive images that seemed crafted for a very young, very far-right audience.”

If such tactics backfired, there may be hope for us yet.

• Last Tuesday, our Zach Kessel had an article on what DeSantis said about a rival for the “non-Trump” vote, Nikki Haley. (The “‘non-Trump’ vote” in the GOP electorate seems pretty darn small.) On Wednesday, Daniel Dale of CNN had a similar article. Each article is stocked with details.

In brief: Haley made perfectly reasonable comments about Gaza and Iran. In response, DeSantis accused her of wanting to import terrorists to America.

It is possible to be a hard-nosed campaigner, throwing the sharpest of elbows, and putting your opponent in the worst possible light, without being a repulsive demagogue.

DeSantis is the Great Anti-Anti-Trump Hope. Many serious people want him to do well — to win the Republican presidential nomination and then the presidency itself. But even they, I think, have to gulp fairly often at their man’s behavior.

Here is DeSantis on the Ukraine war — a momentous contest with far-reaching implications: “I wish the D.C. elites cared as much about our border as they care about the Ukraine–Russia border.”

This man wants to be president of the United States? And serious people want the same for him?

• “Sidney Powell pleads guilty over efforts to overturn Trump’s loss in Georgia and agrees to cooperate.” That is a headline from the Associated Press. The article tells us the following:

As part of the deal, she will serve six years of probation, will be fined $6,000 and will have to write an apology letter to Georgia and its residents. She also recorded a statement for prosecutors and agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials.

That letter of apology? I’ll believe it when I see it, or read it.

You may remember Ms. Powell’s performance after the election. The Republican National Committee (@GOP) ballyhooed it:

“President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it.” They never did. They can’t. Because it’s a bald-faced lie.

When you respect voters, you tell them the truth. When you don’t, you don’t.

• “Stranded on the Eiffel Tower, a couple decide to wed, with an AP reporter there to tell the story.” What the . . .? The article explains:

Police arrested a man climbing Thursday on the Eiffel Tower, leading to visitors being temporarily stranded at the summit — including a reporter for The Associated Press and a Washington, D.C., couple who decided during the wait to get married.

Amir Khan had been planning to propose to Kat Warren later Thursday in a Paris garden away from the crowds, with a romantic dinner on the River Seine also on the menu.

But when the lifts were temporarily shut down because of the climber, stranding the couple and others at the top, Khan decided to spring his surprise.

Pat Eaton-Robb, an AP journalist from Connecticut who was also stuck up there, got their story.

Ah, romance. Ah, Paris. Ah, journalistic enterprise. (Three things I love.)

• In this column, we don’t do much math. Let me phrase that differently: I don’t do much math. (If I did, it would likely be wrong.) But some mathematical head could tell me what the probabilities of this were.

“This”? I have a story to tell.

I had ordered an Uber. The car’s license-plate number, according to the app, ended in “7C.” That’s what I was looking for. At the appointed time, a car approached — a car whose license-plate number ended in “7C.” It blew past me.

“Shoot,” I thought. “Maybe there’s confusion about where to meet me.”

The car behind that car was my Uber. And it, too — as advertised — had a license-plate number ending in “7C.”

I ask you (particularly if you are a math whiz): What are the odds?

• Over the weekend, I spotted what I think may be my favorite T-shirt ever. It said, “Sorry I’m late. I didn’t want to come.” (I should have one, but I’m content just knowing of its existence.)

• I spoke with a “street person” and asked him how he was doing. He thought about it and said, with great seriousness and meaning, “I am stable.” What a wonderful condition: stability. Sweet stability. Probably underrated and underappreciated.

• You have seen Grant’s Tomb before — but I thought it was looking particularly handsome the other day:

Thanks for joining me, my friends. I’ll see you real soon.

If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.