About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, September 4, 2009 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peggy Noonan is a brilliant writer, a pleasure to read. You will enjoy reading the article from which I quoted her above. She was, of course, Reagan's most celebrated speechwriter. But the problem with Noonan's polish is that it comes with a cynical view of politics. Politics is, for her, as it is with many eloquent moderates such as David Gergen, essentially a horse race. Principle plays second fiddle to form. Obama isn't really wrong, he's just "boring." If only he were nicer to Republicans, maybe he could be more "productive." Politics is all about the gray. "But because they are extreme, they become controversial, and because they are controversial, they become ineffective. In its way the system works." The well-packaged, highly polished, middle-of-the road . . . gray.

I love reading Peggy Noonan for the same reason I love reading that glib Nixon speechwriter, Pat Buchanan. For a moment you can let the well-crafted and soothing tones waft over you. Then the meaning or the lack thereof hits you, like acid reflux after a gourmet meal.

Peggy Noonan recently went off on Sarah Palin whom she did not at all oppose on substance (they hold the exact same views) but on form. Palin is "ambitious" and "out of her depth" and "not thoughtful enough to know she is not thoughtful enough." Well, maybe. But those qualities of stately moderation and the appearance of thoughtfulness that so appeal to moderates and the press (think Dukakis, think Dole) have little resonance with voters and provide a politician with little power to resist those with an opposing agenda if he does reach office. (Think "read my lips" G. H. W. Bush.)

With Noonan's solicitous advice to Obama on how he could succeed (if only he would listen to her words) and with Noonan's vicious attacks on a woman who actually does hold her apparent religious and political principles (but who doesn't employ Noonan) one wonders if perhaps professional jealousy trumps common ideology. After all, Noonan worked for a president who was universally described as an unread, unintellectual, and unthinking, and it didn't seem to bother her then.

Maybe Noonan's horse-racism stems from her Catholic faith. In the long run, only the afterlife matters - so what matters on earth is not principle so much as an ability not to offend. Or maybe Noonan is a pleasure to behold in the same way that predatory cats are. In either case, while I do enjoy her words, I do not trust her motives.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/04, 9:56pm)


Post 1

Friday, September 4, 2009 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I've sanctioned your post. It was a real pleasure to read, like Pat Buchanan and like Peggy Noonan, but more so, because there isn't that 'acid reflux' after-effect of reading something loved for its polish and presentation, but marred by many a twisted premise.

You said, "With Noonan's solicitous advice to Obama on how he could succeed if only he would listen to her words and with Noonan's vicious attacks on a woman who actually does hold her apparent religious and political principles..."

That is a gem of an observation - and we see too much of this strangeness. Like Christopher Hitchen and Buckley's offspring savaging Palin and abandoning McCain for Obama because of... Ivy league school background? Style of writing and speaking? Of the VP - the least important elected post in the universe.

If you were to write like this for RealPolitics, I'd be one of those guys settling down with my morning coffee, and hoping you had new column up.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, September 4, 2009 - 1:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This column of Noonan's makes a valid point of youth and style, of the difference between the old and the new, the insiders and the outsiders, but I think Ms. Noonan falls prey to the insider blindness.

It was a major blunder for her to stir Van Jones and his radicalism into this mixture and then excuse it as youthful enthusiasm needing mature guidance. Look at the difference between Beck's call for questions to be answered - questions that the fate of our nation depend upon, when contrasted with Noonan's stylistic observations and whimsy regarding any move by Obama towards center, and how it might be received.

I'm left with the feeling that she missed a real political milestone here. Beck made his case. He has tied together the radial associations of Obama before the election, to the radial nature of his advisors/czars. And he has done it all with their own words. He tied it so tightly that there is no escape that I can see. The bus hasn't enough room under it to throw all of these people.

My political gut says that two things are going to happen of stunning historical import. 1) In 2010 we will see the anger of the people chrystalize in votes for capitalism and fiscal responsibility - a major political turn - and it won't belong to the Republicans (even though they will show a real lack of shame in claiming credit and attempting to milk party power from it);
2) Unless Obama finds some kind of political miracle (and politics is surprising in its range of possibilities), he will be facing a strong movement in the house to impeach.

Unless I'm nutty in my observations, Peggy Noonan is really missing the big picture. Doesn't she see this looming Obama train wreck? It really isn't anything more than the unavoidable result of the population finally realizing, down deep, the degree to which this man is NOT an American in spirit - NOT like 'us' - He really IS for racial reparations type of egalitarian social 'justice' - he really does have Marxist leanings. He really does want to transform the country into a bizarre, community organizer's dream of Venezuela. He really does want to destroy capitalism and trash the constitution. Noonan isn't realizing what happens when all the people in fly-over country are aroused and pissed off and heading for the voting booth.

We are watching some interesting history. It is funny how different it feels to be IN history instead of reading about it - they seem like different universes.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 1:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Steve W

I am not so hopeful. Regarding point one - in 2010 we will see the anger of the people chrystalize in votes for capitalism and fiscal responsibility – I'm not really sure what could cause anyone to see something like that happening. First of all, the history is just not there. Never in the last fifty or so years has the American Voter voted for capitalism. They may think they have, but they haven't. Nixon, Regan, Bush I, Bush II (think of Bush II!). All of them have grown the government, and gladly, while preaching the wonders and marvels of capitalism.

Second, like it or not, we have a two party system. Unless there is some revolution (and my god help us if there is) that's not going to change. They've got a lock on this thing. Years of special rules and regulations and campaign finance reform have made sure of that. So, we either have a party, the Republicans, that hates everyone (gays, blacks, Hispanics, those who wear white after labor day) because they love God or a party, the Democrats, that loves everyone so much they're willing to watch us all die just to prove it.

Third, any movement for change that is not backed by an intellectual foundation will lead to disaster. Sure, it may win, but at what price? Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and Debbie Schlussel are not intellectuals. They are reactionaries and bores.

Maybe I'm just having a bad day. I wanted Pop-Tarts this morning and could not locate any.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 1:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not seeing the big political revolution brewing either. I think that you're right about the lack of a philosophical base. Before the politicians stop making small gov't a buzz word they can't even conceive of implementing the average american is going to have to be able to face the question "What am I willing to have the gov't stop doing?" and find an answer. That isn't going to happen without a philosophy.

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The two previous posts constitute a testable prediction about the next several years, 2010 in particular.  We'll see.  Steve's bad-willed, dead-wrong sterotyping of Republicans does not inspire confidence in his prophetic powers.

Post 6

Sunday, September 6, 2009 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter, I'd be glad for a party to actually say the right things about capitalism and then start moving our government out of the way so as to allow for capitalism. I'd be glad if the Republicans were the ones to do it. It's too bad they wont.

As for the predictions, that's an easy one: to predict the future look at the past. If it's Americans voting, capitalism will lose. I guess that's too bad also.

And now back to the Republicans: They are a joke. Have been for decades. Getting more so all the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Demo's. They're a pretty cracked lot, but as far as I can tell there's not much difference in the two. You may not like it, but they are the same. Different words, same story. Same end, different ways of getting there. That's just too damn bad.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.