Posted on 01/27/2005 9:16:49 PM PST by quidnunc
Because her idiosyncratic take on George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address did not go unnoticed, Peggy Noonan decided she had some splainin' to do. Okay by me. But then she went and threw a press conference. For herself. Asking and answering her own questions. If that isn't a symptom of Olympian presumption, I'm not sure what is.
Fans of her writing may remember that Noonan is the columnist who three months ago told fellow conservatives not to rock the boat over Arlen Specter's elevation to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee (even though she's Catholic and Specter has been hostile to pro-life nominees for positions on the federal bench). Back then, she described "Ssssshhhhhhhh" as both a "wonderful sound" and "good advice for our country" something to keep in mind while we breathe deeply and "build a great silence" on issues that matter.
I hate to start thinking of her as Peggy "turn down the volume" Noonan, but her newfound enthusiasm for quietude at any cost would explain her adverse reaction to GWB's second inaugural. She wants oboes and clarinets. The guy in Air Force One whom she voted for prefers trumpets and cymbals.
"Life is layered, complex, not always most needful of political action. For many people in the world the most important extrafamilial relationship is not with the state but with the God," Noonan writes.
That's blessedly true, as far as it goes, but borderline lunatic when used to criticize a head of state who can only meet the demands of his office by engaging in political action. While the presidential writ doesn't extend to priesthood (thank God!), and the troubles of this world will pass away, it's hard to fault GWB's ode to freedom as "perplexing and disturbing," the way Noonan does.
In a crowning irony, Noonan gives thanks for the fact that timid staffers in the Reagan White House could not prevent Mr. Reagan from saying "tear down this wall," and calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Four administrations and one Laura Ingraham-style "but monkey" later, however, Noonan laments the lack of defensive thinking that in her youth she would have eviscerated.
-snip-
It is truly odd behavior. If you wish, I will go back and point out her articles that do this. The ones that come to mind off the top of my head is her column criticizing him after the Russert interview, the one on how maybe the country would vote for Kerry because of "a wish for normalcy," and the VERY strange column after the Reagan funeral, insulting all the other Reagan speech writers.
It is hard for me to count on someone as an ally who is not dependable. She may be interesting, she may be a good writer (the jury is out on that IMHO), but as an ally she is not dependable.
In this manner she is much like Bill Kristol. Although Kristol happened to like this speech, I can remember several times when Kristol stuck the knife in the President. I don't like Kristol for the exact same reason: he is not a dependable ally.
It puts food on Peggy's table. Credibility before men is a requirement for anyone who wants to speak about God.
The WH has already announced the new head speechwriter.
It's William McGurn, formerly of National Review.
Some of us think that might be what's got Peggy's knickers in a knot.
I know that.
What I mean is, should the WH announce in a few weeks that she'd replace Mc Gurn, I'm sure suddenly those who presently call her a bitch, a lesbian, a has-been who has outliver her usefulness or a mental would immediately profess undying love and admiration.
She's a lightweight. Very lightweight except for some speech writing she did for Ronald Reagan two decades ago. She's foxy looking and gets cut slack other female writers don't
1. Her style doesn't mesh with the President's.
2. She talks out of school.
3. She isn't loyal.
Peggy Noonan is an author and writer on contemporary politics. She served as a speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan from 1984 to 1986. And in 1988, she was chief speechwriter for former President George Bush during his successful presidential campaign.
Bush likes team players, and Peggy Noonan is no longer a team player.
All her credentials listed above are in the past tense. Good as they are, posters here are concerned about her writing now.
I'm sorry, but I just don't read it that way. I've been following Noonan since she started, and most of her work in this vein is meant as constructive criticism, not a stab in the back. I've seen her sentiments echoed across the net by moderate Republicans, perhaps she's representative of those who have conservative values but don't automatically trend toward the Republican party. Although I must admit I am somewhat surprised that she didn't dial this last piece back a bit, as Bush is much more like Reagan than his father ever was - I expected some sort of affinity from her b/c of that. [shrug]
On the other hand, I long ago recognized that she is much more moderate than me, flavors her work with more Catholicism than I care for, and tends to communicate for a New England audience (her environment is NYC afterall). Thus, I've grown accustomed to tolerating some of her "dissident" opinion without feeling "betrayed". Also, her venue is as a speechwriter and columnist, not a TV personality, and I am certain there are mitigating factors in play in her work environment that we are unware of.
It is hard for me to count on someone as an ally who is not dependable. She may be interesting, she may be a good writer (the jury is out on that IMHO), but as an ally she is not dependable.
Again, I seek her opinion out because I know she won't re-iterate the RNC talking points. Consider that we now have THREE columnists outed for being on the Bush payroll. That hurts the conservative message more than her ill-timed criticism.
Its fair to complain that she is not a dependable ally, but there are other ways to measure her contribution. She is, like me, a former Democrat. Millions of us came over during the Reagan Revolution. Peggy Noonan influenced millions more, before there was FOX News or a Blogosphere. Of those millions, I have direct knowledge of a few [cough] who were instrumental in the Florida GOTV effort this election - who ensured a 350,000 vote margin that freed up money & resources for Ohio.
Thats why I remain loyal to Noonan, even when she's wrong. Without her (and Goldwater's) influence, I would probably have ended up marching in the streets with the DU loons, shouting "no blood for oil!" ;)
I'm happy with that. Its not like we're getting constructive criticism from the Dems these days. If we don't have someone to challenge our positions we will grow arrogant, weak, and feebleminded.
BTW, does anyone have a lead that Noonan wants to write for Bush (diff style than Reagan) or are we just speculating again?
I suppose you would take it as "constructive" criticism if someone took issue with something you did by writing a letter to the local paper, rather than giving you a call on the phone. Ms. Noonan did the exact same thing with her column.
I can appreciate your loyalty to Ms. Noonan. I am loyal to the President. I believe he knows a bit more about world politics that she does, and after all, he is the one who got elected.
That sums it up. I hope Peggy Noonan is not turning into a McCain style RINO who misses no opportunity to go loudly public with any disagreement.
She challenged the very heart of the Bush policy: that we will support and encourage every single "freedom-movement" around the world.
That's very odd, IMO, especially since there have been reports from the tsunami areas indicating that the people are getting the idea that "America will be there for us." They know we'll stand with them if they challenge the tyrannies in their lands.
Noonan basically threw cold water on the very ideal that this country stands for, that Reagan stood for, that "shining city on a hill".
Didn't she pen that very line?
Former admirers of hers are left shaking their heads, wondering if she hasn't been attending too many New York cocktail parties.
Consider: of all weeks to say that some people cannot govern themselves, she picks the week of the Iraqi national elections.
"Constructive criticism in the political world is done in private communications, not in a column in the Wall Street Journal."
I disagree. I've been reading the WSJ almost as long as I have Noonan. Conservative columnists routinely disagree with Conservative Presidents on those pages. As they should.
You appear to have a premise that Noonan's criticism hurt the President's message. If so, I respectfully ask that you provide a bit more detail.
"I can appreciate your loyalty to Ms. Noonan. I am loyal to the President. I believe he knows a bit more about world politics that she does..."
But of course. And I remain loyal to both.
Hmmm. Think it's menopause? We do crazy things during that event!
Noonan: Am I saying we shouldn't support freedom then? Hardly. But we should remember as we do it that history, while full of opportunity, is also a long tale of woe. And human vanity--not only that of others, but our own--only complicates our endeavors. Thomas Jefferson was a genius, a great man who loved liberty. But that love led him to headlong support of a French Revolution that proved more demonic than liberating. He was right to encourage the fire of liberty but wrong to lend his great name to Robespierre, Marat and the rest. So much of life is case-by-case, so many of our decisions must be discrete and particular and not "thematic."
Sounds more to me like she is reminding us of the need for moderation.
Regardless, I'm not going to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of her position - since I don't support it. But isn't it amazing how much more interesting this conversation has gotten since we dropped the personal attacks on her?
Just touching back on this comment. I found it interesting, since I would give my left arm to be able to write like her. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.