Peggy Noonan: Way Too Much God

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 21, 2005 | Peggy Noonan

[RWR8189]

Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?

It was an interesting Inauguration Day. Washington had warmed up, the swift storm of the previous day had passed, the sky was overcast but the air wasn't painful in a wind-chill way, and the capital was full of men in cowboy hats and women in long furs. In fact, the night of the inaugural balls became known this year as The Night of the Long Furs.

Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.

For me there was some unexpected merriness. In my hotel the night before the inauguration, all the guests were evacuated at 1:45 in the morning. There were fire alarms and flashing lights on each floor, and a public address system instructed us to take the stairs, not the elevators. Hundreds of people wound up outside in the slush, eventually gathering inside the lobby, waiting to find out what next.

The staff--kindly, clucking--tried to figure out if the fire existed and, if so, where it was. Hundreds of inaugural revelers wound up observing each other. Over there on the couch was Warren Buffet in bright blue pajamas and a white hotel robe. James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf. I remembered my keys and eyeglasses but walked out without my shoes. After a while the "all clear" came,

[Paperdoll]

My comments have been from my heart. If I seem to be "condescending" I certainly apologize. I hit 74 yesterday, and have been involved in Republican politics since 1952, and have walked with the Lord all my life.
I have learned that we all judge others by ourselves, and I, too, am guilty of that. I guess I just don't belong on this thread.

[Ohioan]

I clicked up this thread, just long enough ago to read Miss Noonan's article. I had read attacks on it on other threads, and expected something much more adverse to the President's theme than the article was.

Frankly, the impression being given, by some of the article's critics, was that Miss Noonan was objecting to references to God. In fact she was very quietly suggesting a bit of an overreach in the sense of a personal mission. Had I written the piece, it would have been quite a bit more negative.

It is not the President's Faith that is the issue. The President's Faith is no stronger, certainly, than was George Washington's. But the President is abandoning Washington's wise counsel, is a bout of very excessive self-importance. Miss Noonan did not say it, but it should be noted that whatever God's plan for humanity, it does not need George W. Bush's trashing the wise historic and Constitutional restraints on his office, to embark on a mission in applied fantasy. There is nothing in his approach that answers General Washington's very clear points, that used to guide American Presidents:

Farewell Address

William Flax

[Dysfunctional]

Having a thick skin is important in forum posting.

... as to Peggy, she simply will not allow anybody getting too close to being Reaganesque. It was okay for Dubya to be the sincere, tongue-twisted Texan. But when Bush 2 aspires to the loftier Reagan visions, well... gotta' chop him down to 'shrub' size.

Let's not forget our beloved Ronnie's retreat from Lebanon. IF Dubya gets his complete success in Iraq and a turnover in Iran, his legacy will stretch beyond Reagan's.

Consider the gall of claiming that these times will be freedoms greatest accomplishments... Can't have that can we.

Looks like all the pundits will be after him.

[LibertarianInExile]

Too bad you live in a fantasy world, where you buy everyone's p.r. You think that backing the President entails backing up his every move, and any who don't believe as you believe are deserving of condemnation. I bet if Dubya pooped in your bathroom, you'd tell us his shit don't stink, either.

[ohioWfan]

If you actually meant them as terms of endearment, I wouldn't mind a bit, but everyone on this thread knows that you don't mean a word of what you say.

I AM quite amused by your hyperbolic rhetoric (rage?? LOL!), and transparent baiting (laxative?? even funnier!), however, I am more convinced than ever that you are as genuine as a three dollar bill.

As a Christian of probably more years than you've been alive, it's not hard to tell who's real and who's not. One can have healthy disagreements with real people......real Christians...... and come out respecting them as much, in spite of different views.

I'm a really good judge of character, even through the anonymity of the internet, and you haven't fooled me a bit with your 'loving' posts.

Nice try, though. You've probably fooled some suckers out there........just not me. I'm ON to you, babe. (Term of endearment :o)

[cyncooper]

The only one in a fantasy world is you with your vulgar (but it tells us so much about you) and grossly inaccurate posts about me and others.

You know nothing about me but that doesn't stop you from making wholesale conclusions based on presumption.

How silly and juvenile.

[LibertarianInExile]

I can agree with your purported point. I fail to understand, however, why it was addressed to ME.

I don't think Noonan is right on the "God" score. But I do think this speech was nothing special, and I do think that people on this board have the right to say so without being vilified for it as not being truly Bush fans or being jealous or being traitors or whatever stupid personal attacks have flown by here. I don't think any Presidential speeches since Reagan's time have been ones that'll go down as groundbreaking. And I don't give Noonan credit for that--I think the 'Tear Down This Wall' speech was all Reagan, and it showed.

[ohioWfan]

My comments have been from my heart.

Telling me to take a laxative was from your heart??

I'll admit, that this last post is the first one that was NOT condescending, and seems like you might be telling the truth.

If you are 74, and a Christian, then you can pray for forgiveness, and I certainly accept your apology.

But please don't use any more 'terms of endearment' with me until you at least respect me at even the lowest level........which I'm not sure you do.

Now, I think we have hijacked this thread with this conversation, and I'm going to bow out.

[Glenmerle]

I'm sure Peggy knew her words would be used by the left to create a wedge between conservatives. And quoted ad nauseum by the likes of Chris Matthews as proof the speech was seriously flawed.

Then why did she say it? It wasn't a matter of conscience concerning an important issue. She wasn't disagreeing with Bush over, say, his immigration policy. That's what really bothers me, and what greatly lessens Noonan in my eyes.

Her column was ungracious and petty, she knew it would be used against Bush and conservatives, and--most important--it was at odds with what she's said in the past. Peggy Noonan of all people saying a speech is "God-drenched"! It would be funny, except that she handed the Left a few rounds of ammunition. Leftists and the media these days focus enough on what they consider the takeover of the Republican Party by overly religious nutjobs.

Honestly, where does any Christian get off saying there's "too much God" in anything? It's absurd. Then there's the whole matter of her thinking the speech was too ambitious -- a call to create heaven on earth. That's also at odds with what she's said in the past.

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to give Noonan the benefit of the doubt. There's too much about this that smacks of self-promotion.

[ohioWfan]

We lost these lives in an effort to find weapons that did not exist and are now losing them in an effort to impose democracy in an area of the world that has never had it, where popular sovereignty will inevitably mean Islamic rule. I had hoped Bush had learned from his mistakes. Apparently not.

Number ONE........you once again echo the rhetoric of the left.........WMD were thought to be in Iraq by everyone, not just the President, and were only one of many reasons given for going there. We could argue forever about this subject, but it is not the topic of the thread.

Number TWO........why is it that you think this democracy in Iraq will be 'imposed?' Don't you know anything about what's going on over there, about how much the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a free society?

Number THREE.........what is it about the people of the Middle East that you believe is innately different (or perhaps inferior) to us, that they cannot successfully live in a democracy?

You sound very much like the academic elitist left, once again. It is THEY who believe that those in the Middle East are not smart enough/good enough to successfully rule themselves in a democracy.

Perhaps President Bush hasn't learned from his 'mistakes' (another DNC talking point), because that's not what his policies are.

Nice talking with you, Thorin. I still don't think you're a conservative, but you at least have been polite.......so thanks.

[MEG33]

Take two aspirin, drink lots of liquids and get plenty of rest....If symptoms persist..call your physician.

[Dat Mon]

I just jumped back on this thread for a quick scan, and its not surprising that its still going strong.

Mon...I'm glad that people have gotten away from the one line 'Peggy is a b*itch!...no shes not!' type posts.

Just a few more of my two cents worth. I'm excerpting Meg33 post on Reagan's speech...

Reagan said.." I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. 34

We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress. 35

America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally. 36

And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace."

Reagan is a perfect model to use to ultimately compare and judge Bush's speech. Reagan, who IMHO will be ultimately be judged by history as the greatest American president of the 20th century, was a perfect combination of idealism...and pragmatism.

His vision, IMO was guided by an idealism,as you see in the speech...but he always framed it within the context of American peace and security, and its relationship to what the world IS...and how it functions...Reagan was no fool. Note that in his comments preceding his exposition on freedom, he talks about SDI...quite the pragmatist.

His steely determination to proceed ahead with SDI, much to the chagrin of Gorbachev, and the other 'peace' activists, was what ultimately brought down the Soviet Union. As Washington once said...'We strive for peace, let us prepare for war'...(my recollection of it)

From my post 212.. "I fully support our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fully support our efforts should we go into Iran, or Syria, or wherever...provided it is necessary to secure OUR peace and freedom."

My criteria IMO is in accordance with Reagan's, we must ultimately judge our actions as they relate to OUR peace, freedom, and security. That is the pragmatism...the reality of the world.

I believe that Peggys criticism of Bush's speech, and with others who echo it on this thread, is that Bush's speech is framed within the context of pursuing an ideal of freedom for all the world, as an intrinsically noble goal in itself. That is subtly, but definately different than the Reagan approach, in my view.

Another point that should be stated.

A speech is just a speech...a collection of words. We judge a speech ultimately within its historical context. Reagan's exhortation "Mr Gorbachev...tear down this wall" is judged as monumental because of the fact that those words were part of the Reagan assault that ultimately did bring down the Soviet empire, and the wall along with it.

Bush's speech will ultimately be judged in the same perspective. Its too early to tell what effect Bush's speech will have on the dynamics of the world. Will it lead the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the mullahs..if so...it will go down in history as a pivotal speech.

We have many tests coming (China, Taiwan, Iran) in which Bushs speech and its soaring idealism will be measured. But the speech must ultimately be judged in the context of Americas achievements of greater peace and security of its citizens.

[ohioWfan]

And you expect anyone to value your opinion about anything when you post garbage like that?

I'd expect more sophistication and class than you just exhibited in a Jr. High boys' locker room.

[k2blader]

"Freedom" around the world is indeed a good thing (I put it in quotes because it is a word which can mean many different things). But in itself "freedom" will never conquer poverty nor secure worldwide peace. For proof, look at what the Bible says; look at the heart of man.

I would like to see our President pursue "freedom" for United States citizens with as much passion as he has for doing so around the globe. By that, I mean attacking with fervor the socialist governmental systems which have for far too long eroded Americans' freedoms and in many ways impoverished our nation to the point that someday soon enough we will become the next Europe.

[MEG33]

True..Reagan was constantly criticized...and now he is found correct..except by the left who says Gorbachev was the reason the cold war ended..(Putin seems bent on restarting it.IMHO)

[ohioWfan]

Good post. Thanks!

I see your distinction between Reagan and Bush's words in the speech, but IMO, the security and peace of this nation are by far the highest priority in this President's policies. The freedom of others, which he DOES believe is a noble goal in and of itself, is a noble means to a critically important end.

[Paperdoll]

>Telling me to tax a laxative was from your heart?<<

LOL. The above was just some good old grandmotherly advice. It works, too.

[iconoclast]

Why disguise the true identity of of the enemy?

He's been curiously evasive about this from day one. He's now expanded our "enemies list" from the "axis of evil" to 2/3 of the planet!

All of us that voted for him should be embarrassed by the sight of his father out trying to 'splain his overblown rhetoric!

[bjcoop]

Noonan wrote Bush 41's inaugural address in 1989 in which he tried to appease liberals.

[iconoclast]

Who are you talking about and what mistakes dit he "admit" and how and when did he quit.

I was referring to LBJ, oops, for you I'D better specify LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON.

Please read the posts (slowly, don't be embarrassed to move your lips, nobody's watching) before you start bangin' that keyboard.