Peggy Noonan: Way Too Much God (Freepers let's tell her our thoughts)

WSJ ^ | 1/21/05 | Peggy Noonan

[Mikmur]

PEGGY NOONAN

Way Too Much God Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars. A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.

[ArGee]

The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible.

No, Peggy, I have to disagree with you. The most moving speeches summon us to raise to great hights. It was not possible in 1961 to reach the moon before the end of the decade. It became possible because the President exhorted us to do the impossible and men rose to the occasion.

It is impossible to end tyranny. Goodness, it is impossible to restrain murder and theft. When asked about poverty Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always." Yet He still taught us to care for the poor.

There is nothing wrong with knowing you have physical limits. There is something very wrong with letting your physical limits limit your vision. Only when challenged do you overcome your limits.

As the author of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" said in another of his books - "Argue for your limitations and they're yours." Probably the only really good thing he ever wrote.

Shalom.

[HostileTerritory]

Does Peggy Noonan hate Christ? What would make her turn against Jesus like this?

[ArGee]

Trying to teach democracy to an Arab or an African is like trying to teach a rooster to sing like a canary.

Such unabashed bigotry is refreshing.

Wait a minute. No, it's not.

Shalom.

[N. Beaujon]

I heard her on Hannity the other day and remarked, "it sounds like she's coming down with Alzheimers", (innapropriate giggling, distracted responses, tangential thoughts). After hearing about her comments this morning I'm not sure I was that far off base.

[AndyJackson]

Peggy misses it totally.

Oh I think Peggy got it - totally. The vision thing - you know - suppose a lot of us didn't hear a vision that does anything for us. That is what I thought when I heard it, and that is what Peggy seems to think to.

Maybe it is like this - If I want a religious agenda, I will attend the church down the street. From my political leaders I expect a political agenda.

[AndyJackson]

What would make her turn against Jesus like this?

Did she? Where?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

but I'll not join you and the other piranhas in attacking a lady who has been nothing short of exemplary in her defense of Conservatism over the years.

We must be reading different Peggy Noonan columns.

[skeeter]

Peggy's problem is not too much God, its too much Peggy.

[Timeout]

President Bush's speech was a clarion call to these "insiders" for a revolution

You and I heard the same speech. Two more subtle aspects of the speech about which I've heard little:

The president chose an only-once-every-four-years platform to send his message. The significance of the occassion will not be lost on those who fear the world won't be with them if they dare to challenge their oppressors. The PROMINENCE of this speech at this time at this place should not go unmentioned.

There's another subtle and blatantly political aspect of this speech. It has been interesting to watch the recent transformation of the so-called "progressive" Left into a bunch of reactionaries opposed to the president's "human rights" ideals. They used to be the idealists. Now Bush is the idealist and all too often they find themselves siding with the oppressors. This speech called them out. Join us or let the world see what hypocrites you are.

The pundits say they've stopped "misunderestimating" the president. But, by giving this speech at this time, Bush has once again shown his mastery of the strategic political battleground. He's outflanked the Left and they're left sputtering and mewing about "realistic goals". It would be funny to watch if the stakes weren't so high.

[ArGee]

All of the stuff about foreign policy - that is SO last term. We already took down the Taliban and Al Qaida. Bush needs to do something for US - more than just foreign policy.

So we're safe now? We can dismantle the DHS because there are no nations harboring terrorists who wish to do us harm?

Shalom.

[N. Beaujon]

I don't think anyone ought to get their knickers iin a know because Peg didn't like the speech. I understood her point and while disagreeing with it, this was not a malicious review nor was it extreme. She has a point and any of the "realists" might agree with her. This was an idealistic speech and I am surprised so many are taking it concretely. I don't think GWB promised to extend freedom in the next four years and make a utopia. I think he was thinking long range and as a posture rather than an action. But that is just me, I interpreted it in a nuanced way. But Peggy didn't. Otherwise she loves GWB just like us.

When JFK or Martin Luther King Jr. invoked utopian idealism, God and vision they were idolized. When GWB does it he suffers from "mission inebriation"? Every great visionary suffers from mission inebriation by Noonan's standards, only when they're a Conservative is it labelled a "neurosis".

This is nothing but self loathing, hypocrasy in its worst form.

[ride the whirlwind]

President Bush likes to think outside the box. I suppose that Peggy likes to think inside the box. I'll take Bush and his visionary ways over no vision any day. "Where there is no vision, the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. "-Proverbs 29:18.

[ArGee]

In my defense I refer to the point made just above "If she thinks there's to much God now. Wait till she stands in judgment then she can file a complaint in person."

I rest my case.

What exactly is your case? Does it bother you that those who believe in G-d actually believe in Him rather than just attending Church and keeping their worldview to themselves? That's a bad case to be resting.

JustMyThoughts has as much of a right to actually believe that there will be a judgement and how it will go as you do. Frankly, I consider your unwillingness to consider that He must be the motiviator behind a believer's life more dangerous than any believer.

Shalom.

[paulat]

The vision thing - you know - suppose a lot of us didn't hear a vision that does anything for us.

So what? Your question was not directed at the CONTENT of the speech. It was directed at the PURPOSE of the speech. Be specific if you want specific answers.

To recap: Inaugural Speech - vision. State of the Union Speech - specifics.

Without discussing content, Noonan STILL missed the purpose of the speech.

[AndyJackson]

So we're safe now? We can dismantle the DHS because there are no nations harboring terrorists who wish to do us harm?

First, we know Bush's foreign policy agenda. We have lived with it for a term now. Second, we rely on DOD, CIA and NSA to keep us safe from terrorists by taking the fight to them. Domestically the pricipal agency is the FBI. DHS is an enormous bureacracy that is still tyring to create its organization tables. When you thing DHS think DOE or Dept of Education in mission and effectiveness. It doesn't own a whole mission and cannot execute the part of the mission that it has.