Noonan condemns Republicans for not dissociating themselves from President Bush

Peggy Noonan says the Republicans are in deep trouble this year, and that it’s mainly because the country has turned away from President Bush, and the party sold its soul in being associated with him.

She writes:

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn’t happen in 2005, and ‘06, and ‘07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration—over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government—has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They’re stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party’s fortunes from the president’s. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn’t be left with a ruined “brand,” as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

I agree with everything Noonan says here. But I also must ask: was Noonan calling for the Republican party to break with the president in 2005, and ‘06, and ‘07? No. It’s true that she began to turn away from Bush starting with her attack on his Bizarro World January 2005 inaugural address, but, as far as I remember, she never made a point of calling on Republicans to break with him. So what right has she to criticize Republicans for not having broken with the president, when she herself never advocated such a course or even discussed the possibility until now?

I’m sorry to keep repeating the following points, but, for the record, I said all through 2004 that Bush’s reelection would lead to the ruin of the Republican party and of conservatism, by allowing Bush to continue leading the GOP and the conservative movement to the left. In summer and fall 2006 I argued repeatedly (and used whatever indirect contacts I had with House members to convey the same message to them) that the Republican House members should make their successful opposition to Bush’s open borders bill earlier that year the explicit centerpiece of their re-election campaigns, both because it was right, and because it was the only way they could maintain their majority in the House and thus continue to stop the bill in the next Congress. Did Noonan, a columnist with approximately ten thousand times more influence with Republicans than I have, ever make such an argument? No. In the typical neocon manner, having had second thoughts about some neocon position, she leaves out the fact that she ever had first thoughts.

- end of initial entry -

Paul Nachman writes:

I agree very strongly both with the Peggy Noonan quote and with your associated criticism of her. That’s something that’s been on my mind for some years, of how the Repubs were so thoroughly and determinedly blowing the opportunity they’d earned (with Clinton’s help) in 1994.

Really, what have they done with it? Welfare reform was significant (but they allowed backsliding on welfare for legal immigrants.) It may be unfair, but I can’t really think of anything else. But here’s what they’ve blown:

1. Immigration;

2. They acceded to No Child Left Behind (see Charles Murray on the subject);

3. Metastasizing entitlements;

—Did nothing to sober the country up about Social Security;

—Added prescription drug boondoggle to Medicare, and they didn’t even get any political benefit out of it (reminds me of the line about someone being “too dumb to sell ass on a troopship”);

4. All the cultural issues.

There’s an article in the new Atlantic about the PHENOMENON of Obama’s money-raising. I read the whole thing thinking, “What are these saps going to do when the task is governing, not campaigning?” (To be fair, there’s a following article about using the internet in governing. Not very impressive, and my conclusion is that it’ll make politics even more like showbiz than it already is.)

This ties in to the Repubs’ colossal flub, that it’s all about being like greyhounds chasing the rabbit, nothing about thinking.

NOONAN A. Zarkov writes:

The Republicans made a colossal strategic blunder while they held formal federal political power: they failed to erode the liberal power base. This base consists of their dominant influence in academia, the media, Hollywood, the public education, foundations, and the legal system which includes the judiciary. David Horowitz, the ex-communist understands this very well. Look at how he has targeted academia. He knows academia generates important ideas, and how it can mold the minds of the young. And the liberals understand what he’s doing, and that’s why he literally risks his life when he appears on campus. The Republicans, through the power of the purse, should have helped Horowitz by insisting on campus reform as a precondition for federal funding. Academia includes law schools and all the top-ranked schools are dominated by leftist professors. Law school graduates feed into the judicial clerk system, and these clerks are overwhelmingly liberal in their outlook. The Republicans should have changed the governance of public radio and television which constantly trumpet liberal ideas. They didn’t. A network of wealthy tax-exempt foundations is another liberal power base. The Republicans should have changed the tax code to curb their influence. Again the seemed too busy to notice.

The Republicans should have done all these things and more, but they didn’t. Why? Fundamentally they’re more interested in making money than anything else. They also lack the energy, courage and fire necessary to grab and hold power. I also think they’re kind of dumb. They don’t understand that ideas matter, that ideas are the future. The so-called neoconservatives (mainly ex-liberals and ex-communists) do understand that ideas matter, but they’re still basically liberal. They still cling to the basic liberal conception that all groups, races, countries and cultures are essentially equivalent—in short they still believe that humans are basically a blank slate. Look at how they run from the debate over race and IQ.

By failing to change the fundamental institutions of power while they had the opportunity, the Republicans have virtually guaranteed their future obsolescence. They are just beginning to realize the seriousness of their plight as they face the possibility of catastrophic losses in the next election. If the Democrats capture the presidency along with super majorities in the House and Senate, they won’t be shy about grabbing even more power. We could face a virtual one-party government for a long time. Enough time to destroy the country.

James P. writes:

“But I also must ask: was Noonan calling for the Republican party to break with the president in 2005, and ‘06, and ‘07? No. It’s true that she began to turn away from Bush starting with her attack on his Bizarro World January 2005 inaugural address, but, as far as I remember, she never made a point of calling on Republicans to break with him. So what right has she to criticize Republicans for not having broken with the president, when she herself never advocated such a course or even discussed the possibility until now?”

Noonan did not attack Bush earlier because she is a creature of expediency, not principle. She did not want to attack Bush, even though his policies were clearly disastrous, until he was a lame duck and seemed likely to take the GOP down with him. If the bad policies had, through some miracle, remained popular and politically successful, she would not be attacking him even now.

That said, it is not clear that a great many of the Republicans she is advising to break with Bush are any more principled than she is. They went along with Bush’s disastrous policies, and were happy to reap the benefits when these policies “worked.” Now they have to pay the price, and it’s tough to feel sorry for them.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 18, 2008 09:42 PM | Send