NOONAN: It's Policy, Not Poetry

OpinionJournal ^ | 12/16/2004 | Peggy Noonan

[StoneGiant]

Democrats puzzle over how to "manipulate symbols." Why not start by taking a stand for Christmas?

Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:01 a.m.

This week the president's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, made news when he spoke about the religious references George W. Bush makes in his speeches. Mr. Gerson said that while President Bush believes, as most Christians do, that God is at work in his life, the president does not of course believe that God is behind his presidency or his policy positions.

[netmilsmom]

>> But what seemed most telling was his being questioned on whether, when the president refers to belief, he is speaking in "code" to evangelicals.<<

Some reporters didn't get their decoder rings.

[shubi]

God created Michael Moore so Bush would win.

[SuziQ]

The idea that the president is speaking in religious code to his religious followers says more about the reporters who asked the question than it does about the president, or his speechwriter.

It tells me they're a bunch of paranoid liberals.

[stylin_geek]

bump

[MizSterious]

"It is this: Stop the war on religious expression in America."

Anyone see any pigs flying? 'Cause I don't think it's going to happen until we do. ;)

Good column from Noonan, as always.

[shezza]

Here's another good quote:

You can get so well educated in America that your thoughts become detached from common sense. You can get so complicated in your thinking that the obvious isn't real to you anymore.

Boy, if that isn't the liberals all over. To them academia and Hollywood elitism trump common sense and reality.

[SolutionsOnly]

I have to agree that the Democrats conclusions that it's a semantics issue is amusing. But the reality of it is, What else have they got? Nothing. They're playing he only card they have left - and it's a deuce.

[Obadiah]

Actually, it is a very good idea. If sincerely done, Democrats would benefit immediately and tremendously. On the other hand, cold fusion is a great idea too! And cold fusion is about as likely to occur this week as the idea of Terry McAulliff taking Peggy's advise.

[Maceman]

Amazing how Republicans are always associated with Scrooge and the Grinch in the public mind -- an image propagated by the press at every opportunity. Remember Newsweek's "How the Gingrich Stole Christmas" cover?

And yet the Democrats are the ones aggressively driving Christmas from our culture.

[tai-pan]

You can get so well educated in America that your thoughts become detached from common sense. You can get so complicated in your thinking that the obvious isn't real to you anymore.

Outstanding, words fail me.

[mountaineer]

Do this, Democrats. Announce you will apply pressure to antireligious zealots throughout the country. You have nothing to lose but a silly and culturally unhelpful reputation as the party that is hostile to religious expression.

I agree. They just can't do it. It would conflict too harshly with their "cultural Marxist/European socialist" mentality. To accept and acknowledge religion as a fact of everyday life, especially Christianity, would be too, too historically American, and it's things American that so disgust the Dems.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

But what seemed most telling was [presidential speechwriter Gersten's] being questioned on whether, when the president refers to belief, he is speaking in "code" to evangelicals. No, said Mr. Gerson, "they're not code words, they're our culture."

. . . the Democrats in the last cycle really did think there is some high magic in the creation of political rhetoric, and that Republicans do some voodoo that they, being ingenuous and honest, haven't quite gotten a handle on yet . . .

[Democrats,] Stop the war on religious expression in America. Have Terry McAuliffe come forward and announce that the Democratic Party knows that a small group of radicals continue to try to "scrub" such holidays as Christmas from the public square. They do this while citing the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say it is wrong or impolite to say "Merry Christmas" or illegal to have a crèche in the public square. The Constitution says we have freedom of religion, not from religion. Have Terry McAuliffe announce that from here on in the Democratic Party is on the side of those who want religion in the public square, and the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall for that matter. Then he should put up a big sign that says "Merry Christmas" on the sidewalk in front of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters on South Capitol Street.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate!

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

[JoeGar]

Nobody writes better than Peggy.

[blueknight]

Another Noonan gem, but I wish she would quit giving away our secrets.

[Taliesan]

She thought it was some kind of higher, dark and secret magic. She thought there were secret codes and symbols placed in speeches to communicate secret messages and elicit certain reactions.

Liberals look at communication this way because THEIR personalities function this way, and they project their pathology onto the rest of the universe.

They respond from a sub-analytical place in their soul. They are therefore very susceptible to manipulation by symbols and tactics. They are not capable of bringing analytical acumen to bear on language BEFORE they respond to it. This is why it is impossible to argue with a liberal; they don't think; they feel.

Even the bright among them. The smart liberals use their brains differently than you and I. The function of their brains is to wrap a pre-analytical response in a protective coating of justification. First, the feeling, then, the argument to support it. So it isn't a question of who is smart and who is dumb; no, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is the SEQUENCE in which the faculties engage.

So when they look for the magic phrase, the magic symbol, they are just assuming that the entire electorate is like them.

The liberal is a person with a subconscious. The more conservative is your temperament, the less a subconscious you have. Literally. So when you're a Peggy Noonan and some leftist academic asks you about rummaging around in voters' subconscious, you have no idea what she is talking about.

[Raffus]

This is why it is impossible to argue with a liberal; they don't think; they feel.

My number one saying and very true!

[subterfuge]

"Liberals look at communication this way because THEIR personalities function this way, and they project their pathology onto the rest of the universe.

They respond from a sub-analytical place in their soul. They are therefore very susceptible to manipulation by symbols and tactics. They are not capable of bringing analytical acumen to bear on language BEFORE they respond to it. This is why it is impossible to argue with a liberal; they don't think; they feel.

Even the bright among them. The smart liberals use their brains differently than you and I. The function of their brains is to wrap a pre-analytical response in a protective coating of justification. First, the feeling, then, the argument to support it. So it isn't a question of who is smart and who is dumb; no, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is the SEQUENCE in which the faculties engage. So when they look for the magic phrase, the magic symbol, they are just assuming that the entire electorate is like them. "

Oh, that's good Tal. Can I use it as my tagline? Will it fit? Very well said.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Your favorite saying is not so different from my tagline, actually.

PR being the art of evoking emotional rather than logical responses . . .

[Raffus]

Agreed. Very good tagline! Growing up for me with liberals all around was like being in the 'twilight zone'. God awful.