Every Boy And Every Gal That’s Born Into The World Alive
Peggy Noonan may be a great speechwriter, but I've never thought she's a great thinker. From her perch on the Wall Street Journal, she tends to makes vague, imperious pronouncements that don't add up to much. (In fact, these qualities, which make her analyses generally worthless, might be what make her such a good speechwriter.)
Still, her latest column is causing a stir. It's a pretty strong attack on the Bush White House. As a barometer of mainstream conservative feeling, it has meaning, but as a rational, measured argument, there's not much there.
She says like father, like son--both Bushes are "wasters of political inheritance." Both failed to stick to their conservative principles and, thus, sundered their party. With Bush the younger, it's a number of things, immigration being the final straw. With Bush the elder, it's the old tale of the tax hike.
It's true, both 41 and 43 are dealmakers with centrist tendencies, but this is still a conservative just so story.
I don't deny Bush's immigration plan would be a hard sell in any case, and his strident rhetoric has not been helpful, but his problem is the same as his father's--not any particular policy, but that he became unpopular. When that happens, you get all sorts of after-the-fact explanations on how someone failed to live up to his conservative birthright.
Bush the elder was highly popular after he broke his "no new taxes" pledge. It was only later, after the economy was moving downward and the war boost had worn off did his polls numbers fall. If he had remained popular, there'd be criticism of the tax hike, but it would be an afterthought.
And if Bush the younger had, for whatever reason, remained popular during the war in Iraq, conservatives would still oppose his immigration plan--perhaps successfully block it--but they wouldn't be giving laundry lists of how he's betrayed his party.
Any President has to make compromises, and go against some of his base at times. Look at the beloved Reagan. He was a "useful idiot" for cozying up to Gorbachev. He found several ways of increasing revenue without officially calling them tax hikes. And he signed an amnesty bill--if you don't like Bush's plan, Reagan's was far worse.
But Peggy Noonan still thinks he's a hero--the very model of what a conservative in office should be. Why? Because in politics, nothing succeeds like success.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 PM
3 Comments:
Both Bushes are poor communicators. That is what distinguishes them from Reagan and Clinton. Neither Bush could give a decent speech (I am told they do well one on one), though both have made a few good speeches. Out of thousands they generally have done a poor job. One could pull a few clunkers from Clinton or Reagan, but on the whole they got their point across. They also knew how to play off their weaknesses like a comedian turning on a heckler. Reagan used humor for this most often.
The other frequent critique of GWBush is that he is not intellectually curious. I don't know whether this is true but he sure comes off as such. Likability is important in getting your programs through.
Still GWBush and his father were never really conservatives, even compassionate conservatives. They do not believe in small govt. You failed to mention the Americans with Disability Act. I do feel that GWBush has core values but that they are not at heart conservative.
I find it hard to believe anyone would question 43 GB's commitment to hard core conservatism on a rhetorical and social basis. Of course his creation of a big government national security state seems to contradict that, but I think its more a case of emphasizing movement conservatism over process conservatism. The left hates Bush the Lesser much more for his non-swerving commitment to rightish cultural rhetoric and positions than they ever did his father. Of course, his failed war policy and execution just adds to that. I agree that conservatives are looking for a good reason to dump him given his unpopularity (although unpopularity doesn't just happen, it is usually related to policies, performance and conditions) and the immigration bill seems to be one of those cultural conservative issues where he has parted from the angry mob in his base.
[I don't think there is a "good" political position on immigration that would be popular- it cuts across ideology in too many ways- but thats another issue]
Of course Noonan would question Bush 43's conservatism. She long ago anointed herself the one true Reaganite, the lone keeper of the conservative flame. Remember her bizarre column following the Reagan funeral when she castigated all those people she used to work alongside of? (Nice!) And she has never been fond of the Bush family. If I remember correctly, even 12 years ago, she spent the first chapter of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness lambasting Bush 41's failed re-election campaign. The point with her always is: she alone knows the conservative base. If everyone would simply listen to her -- our only authentic tie to Reagan -- if only we'd buy her books, consult with her and invite her on TV roundtables, none of this would happen. I'm so tired of this unseemly self-promotion even though I'm often on her side of the issues.
And the only reason anyone thinks Noonan is a great speechwriter is because she had a great editor in Reagan himself. God, the woman goes on and on.
Post a Comment
<< Home