In today’s Impromptus, I have notes on a couple of duos: Steph Curry and Anthony Edwards (basketball), Bob Newhart and Don Rickles (comedy). I have plenty of politics, too: starting with J. D. Vance’s claim that Americans without children don’t have a “direct stake” in the country.

I also say that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris ought to be asked about our federal budget deficit, national debt, and entitlement programs: Do they care about these matters at all? If they do, what action do they propose to take?

Populists like to say that America has a “uniparty.” They are right in at least one respect, I believe: Neither Republicans nor Democrats give a fig about the long-term fiscal health of the country. (What was that about having a “direct stake” in America and its future?) They are happy to saddle future generations with crushing burdens.

Politicians such as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan call this “immoral.” Always scorned by Democrats, these guys are now scorned by Republicans, too.

Earlier this month, I published an article headed “Our New Right.” I quoted J. D. Vance, who had a characteristic line on entitlement reform. Talking to Steve Bannon, he said, “There are people who would cut Social Security, throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht?”

I commented as follows:

The conservatives I knew, in the pre-Trump era, would have been disgusted by this statement: by the gross demagoguery; by the mouthing of Kremlin propaganda. These things were the opposite of what we stood for.

For decades, conservatives urged the reform of entitlements, saying it was necessary to preserve the basic system and to avoid financial collapse. And Democrats said — just what J. D. Vance says: that we wanted to “throw our grandparents into poverty.”

Let me turn to some mail. I got a letter from an old friend and reader in Michigan, saying,

You write the truth: “conservatives urged the reform of entitlements.” I know, because I supported them. And?? They did nothing. They “urged” but didn’t accomplish. Didn’t act.

So, if Vance TALKED in favor of entitlement reform for the next two decades but also did nothing — would you like him more?

I disagree with the premise: that conservatives were all talk, or that they were insincere and indifferent. I have already mentioned Romney and Ryan. George W. Bush, Mitch Daniels, and others were noble too — trying to get their fellow politicians and the public to act responsibly in matters fiscal; trying to get them to steer away from the iceberg.

Bush spent the political capital of his reelection on Social Security reform — to no avail. That was not his fault, in my judgment. It was ours. The fault of The People, and the bulk of our representatives.

(Two Januarys ago, I wrote a piece about this, here.)

In any case, it is important to make arguments, and to do one’s best to persuade one’s fellows. It is important for leaders to lead (rather than merely follow). In our democracy, we can’t simply decree major reforms. It takes the cooperation of people at large.

And if a politician wants to leave entitlements as they are — favoring no reform, no action — he does not have to be a demagogue. What did Vance do, in the statement I quoted above (and have quoted in several articles)? He uses longstanding Democratic Party propaganda — claiming that entitlement-reformers want to throw the elderly into poverty.

(You recall that, in 2012, a Democratic group made an ad showing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair — pushing her off a cliff.)

Not only does Vance use old Democratic propaganda, he uses current Kremlin propaganda.

No, I don’t care for such a politician, never have. If I could address RightWorld (to borrow Richard Brookhiser’s formulation), I would crib a line from Mrs. Thatcher: “You turn if you want to.”