Her criticisms of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are as
significant as rap music: to John Kerry, indispensible; to me,
just noise.
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-
This is also an effort to change the course of policy. Peggy isn't simply criticizing the speech. She is undercutting it and calling the policy full of hubris, unrealistic, and fraught with dangers. She opposes it...although she has managed to cleverly hide this with soft words.
As I said to livius, of all weeks to say that some people cannot self-govern, she chose the week of the Iraqi national elections. This is not constructive criticism.
Agreed. I used Lewis to counter this in post #149. I'm more upset with the statement itself than the timing.
But what about this?
White House clarifications that the speech did not intend to announce the unveiling of a new policy
Perhaps the Kurds (those not massacred) would have some input on the wisdom of matching rhetoric with resources? The Iranians were rightfully emboldened by Bush's speech. Lets hope they don't out themselves only to discover we weren't serious.
This is not a new policy, because it has been the policy of the administration since September 11, 2001. It isn't the President's fault that people don't pay attention.
"It isn't the President's fault that people don't pay attention"
By people - do you mean Americans, Iraqis, or Kurds? Or all three?
For enquiring minds that wanna know. Here is the MUST EXCERPT list.Gone Wobbly
By Patrick O’Hannigan Published 1/28/2005 12:06:18 AM
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.
Here's the relevant excerpt, from saddest paragraph in her sad column:
In other White Houses there were always too many people eager to show their worth by removing the meaning of the speech, or warning the president that such and such shouldn't be said. I get the impression no one in this White House wants to be the person in the speechwriter's memoir who tried to remove "Tear down this wall" or "evil empire." So often such people are defensive, anxious, unhelpful. They often lost the battle in the Reagan White House, to the benefit of history. But for this speech there seemed no one who wanted to think defensively and wield the editing stick. Which is bad, because such people are actually needed. Like dead wood in a forest; they add to the ecology; they have their purpose.
Had I been the one wielding the editing stick, I'd have struck GWB's gratuitous and wholly unnecessary reference to the Koran as one of several influences on the development of American principles. But Noonan was disturbed by the overall boldness of the inaugural address, not by its feckless nod to political correctness. She pines for dead wood (and I crack myself up).
Insofar as Noonan's lament is environmentally-tinged shorthand for the message of the Byrds and the Book of Ecclesiastes that "to everything, there is a season," I agree. Balance is not to be sneered at. But as an effective chief executive, GWB did right to focus the eyes of the world on "the fire of freedom" rather than the dead wood that could well find its purpose as fuel for that fire.
Robust restatement of American principle anchored in Natural Law didn't go over with Noonan, and she's said why in her elegant way twice now. My guess is that in addition to her stated reasons (which I believe), she writes so much from the heart that she's let her mind atrophy. It ought to give her pause that none other than Jordanian dung heap Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's rant against the "evil principle of democracy" stands as perverse confirmation of the wisdom of playing to American strengths. Sadly, it does not.
I like Peggy Noonan, but I think it's time for an intervention.
Patrick O'Hannigan writes from San Diego.
The most shameful thing our nation has done in some time was to encourage the Kurd and Shia revolts without backing them up. I lay that at the feet of those in the 41 administration who were playing realpolitik, and President Bush shouldn't have paid attention to them. I also blame the democrat Congress for dragging their feet on almost everything at that time.
But this is NOW, we have a President who doesn't make empty promises, and we have a Republican majority.
President is on now with Condi Rice. He is again supporting the Iraqi elections and praising the Iraqi people.
"But this is NOW, we have a President who doesn't make empty promises"
I pray that you are right, because the stakes are higher than they have ever been in my lifetime. I trust Bush, but not Fate. Consider what would have happened to Reagan had Gorby been ousted before the Ship of Fools sank.
I'm off to crunch some numbers & get sleep. Be fair to me while I am gone :)
You do realize that Noonan's criticism of the President's speech was that it had "too much God"?
"He is again supporting the Iraqi elections and praising the Iraqi people."
* quick whack-a-mole impersonation *
Powerline has some optimistic speculation:
"It seems pretty clear that one of two things is happening: either 1) the Iraqi authorities have steadily rolled up Zarqawi's network to the point where they are on the doorstep of catching the master terrorist himself; or 2) rumors that Zarqawi himself was caught several weeks ago are true, and the reason why his closest associates are now being captured is that Zarqawi is squealing on his friends."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
I think I'll go check out Powerline. I think their speculation is spot on. I wonder what The Belmont Club has to say...
Because she spoke her mind in public, twice. If she wanted to truly help the Bush administration, she could do it in private communications.
As it is, she has given the MSM a club to beat Bush over the head with. Apparently, she either doesn't see it, or does see it, and doesn't care what effect it has.
Isn't a bit too much to expect from a columnist to restrict herself to private comments ? And besides, what is the points of having free and thriving Conservative media if the editors are only supposed to write what is approved by the White House ?
For example, many Conservatives are very wary of President Bush's plan about illegal immigration. Are they supposed to support it publicly at every occasion and only whisper disapproval when nobody else can hear ?
Noonan didn't like W's 2nd because he said something to the effect that it is American policy to oppose tyrrany everywhere. She, and Buckley, thought that was so ambitious it was meaningless.
Yet she praises a Kennedy speech wherein he promises to "bear any burden", "oppose any foe to advance the casue of liberty."
PN is a magnificent writer and a good lady. As a writer, she has the flaws of one who is not afraid to be herself. She will yet do important work for conservatism.
But she reacts to things in a visceral way, and then she constructs rhetoric to explain her own reaction, which she may or may not really understand. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's silly.
On this one, silly. Bush was Reagenesque the other day. We bitch when he's not, and cut his legs out when he is.
I'm tired of arguing about this. You think Peggy did the right thing in taking Bush to task over his inaugural speech, I don't. I was very disappointed in her "too much God" comment, as well as her "let's dial it back" mentality, especially on the eve of the Iraqi election.
I'm not at the point of abandoning Peggy yet. But 'gone wobbly' is sums up my perception well.
-- Joe
Could we then sum it up by saying you would prefer Conservative columnists, such as Peggy Noonan, to write only approving articles ?
Her criticisms of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are as
significant as rap music: to John Kerry, indispensible; to me,
just noise.
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.
