On Noonan, civility, and the futility of politics
There are a number of ways I could take – and respond – to this post Dennis Sanders wrote about my treatment of Peggy Noonan. I’ll shoot for constructive criticism – but first, here’s Dennis:
If I can sum up some of the best conservative columnists out there, it would have to be David Brooks, David Frum, Ross Douthat, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan. All of them are great observers of the political scene and rarely go down the angry path that Rush Limbaugh has blazed. I especially like Peggy Noonan because she can be critical of both parties and yet does it with a sense of grace, which you feel even if you don’t agree with her.
Now, I don’t always agree with her. In fact, I don’t always agree with any of the above writers all the time. Some of their columns can bother me. But at least I hope I don’t call them a “wingnut” because they wrote something bad about President Obama.
However, that is exactly what blogger E.D. Kain does in a post today where he rips Noonan for her column which chides the President’s handling of Gulf oil spill.
Dennis goes on to defend, to some degree, Noonan and her assertions in the column in question. That’s fair enough, though I think what Noonan needs at this point is more people pointing out how entirely over the top her column actually was. From what little I’ve read of hers, she’s been a fairly reasonable writer and conservative. This column certainly broke from that trend. I certainly didn’t write a response to Noonan’s column because she “wrote something bad about President Obama.” If that were my schtick I’d be at it all the time. Plenty of conservatives say much worse things about Obama, after all. The point here is that Noonan is usually more level-headed. It appears she wants to tack right, just like so many others in the Age of Obama. Perhaps the ratings are better from the wings? Perhaps she was worried too many on the Tea Party right would label her an elitist Obamaphile?
In any case, I hardly think it’s fair to conflate a few hyperbolic posts with a trend away from more thoughtful writing altogether. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. I’ll take it as constructive criticism to a point – maybe my writing has been more exasperated and hyperbolic lately. Maybe I should rein in that impulse a bit (though there is plenty, from the oil spill to the Arizona immigration law that is making me, for lack of a better word, angry these days).
If Dennis really thinks that’s all my writing has amounted to lately there’s very little I can do to dissuade him. But I’d point to a few very recent pieces – here, here, here, here and here to pick a few – which I think were pretty decent, thoughtful and certainly not hyperbolic meditations. Do I take some shots at some stupid things people say, wade into the polemical waters from time to time? Sure. I think it’s fun. I think sometimes people deserve it – and sometimes I go too far. Hell, sometimes I probably deserve it.
I’m not in this game to be ‘nice’ or to pull punches anymore than I do it so that my team wins. I’m generally a pretty nice guy to begin with, I think, so my natural tendency is to avoid angry posts. I prefer civil discourse to a shouting match or an echo chamber, but there are times when otherwise intelligent people say stupid and possibly damaging things and ought to be treated gloves off. Most of the time, I’d rather not have the nice police call out anyone who pushes the boundaries of whatever it is that is supposed to be civil or polite. As much as I admire Dennis, this is exactly what he’s doing. I called Noonan a ‘wingnut’ and I did so because typically she’s not a wingnut – usually. If she wants to play that game, people should treat her accordingly. She’s a grown woman with a high perch. She can take care of herself.
As for me ‘turning into a liberal’ I could honestly care less if people think of me as a ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’ or any other label. I’ve been trying to figure out how to classify my politics for some time now. I like to think I’m like plenty of other open-minded people out there – not easily placed in a box, with room to change my mind as circumstance dictates.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Peggy Noonan goes wingnut (trueslant.com)
- Noonan Unhinged, Ctd (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- Peggy Noonan: Obama’s Presidency is Over (firedoglake.com)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
It appears she wants to tack right, just like so many others in the Age of Obama. Perhaps the ratings are better from the wings? Perhaps she was worried too many on the Tea Party right would label her an elitist Obamaphile?
This isn’t much different from conservatives accusing moderates of moderating their views for the DC cocktail parties.
I disagree. If Noonan had come out with some shockingly conservative rant against Obama that was grounded in sense and reason – well by all means, rant away. When Glenn Greenwald smacks Obama upside the head on civil rights abuses, I cheer him on. Same with a smart critique from conservatives, libertarians, or whoever. Noonan was just manufacturing red meat.
In response to another comment. See in context »Noonan has never been grounded in sense and reason. She wasn’t grounded in sense and reason when she was going after Sarah Palin, either. Or when she was critical of Bush. Back then, of course, she was simply selling out conservatism for the cocktail parties.
I have no particular affinity for Noonan, but I get annoyed at non-falsifiable accusations against motivation. No matter what your opinion is, you can always be accused of selling out to somebody. And you can never prove otherwise.
In response to another comment. See in context »Fair enough. Though I’m unsure if we can avoid entirely speaking about motivation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Erik:
Giggle. Dennis is correct. You HAVE moved leftward and become angrier.
That, however, be a good thing. There’s a LOT of problems to be angry about out there and the Right doesn’t have any solutions. In fact, the Right caused many of those problems.
No doubt he’s correct. I admit to as much. I just don’t think that thoughtful posting and angry posting are mutually exclusive….necessarily.
In response to another comment. See in context »Erik:
Of course not. That’s because you’re a liberal now, so superficial and self-serving false dichotomies just don’t have the same appeal.
John Holbo has a couple of closely related threads over at Crooked Timber. The second one is spot on:
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/26/conservative-principles-liberaltarian-afterthoughts/
but read the first for context and flow:
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/25/conservative-principle-and-the-rhetoric-of-principle/
In essence, “heterodox conservative” is simply a euphimism for “liberal” for folks who either can’t bear to release a longstanding self-identification (Andrew Sullivan, say) or folks like you who grew up in a polity where “liberal” had been demagogued and discredited as a legitimate posture.
Reminds of literally the first time I ever heard Rush Limbaugh back in 1992. He was blathering along stupidly about what would happen when liberalism was completely extinguished. I remember thinking “You idiot. What do you think will happen then? The ‘conservatives’ will split into rival factions, one of which will be ‘conservative conservatives’ while the other is the ‘liberal conservatives’ and we’ll have the same fucking fights all over again.”
In response to another comment. See in context »I remember the first time I heard Rush, I was like ten or eleven, and I just couldn’t figure what he was so angry about.
In any case, I have a post in the works on all of this. I think what I needed to do was go through an examination period of all the political ideas and beliefs I could explore. Back in the Afghanistan days circa 9/11 I was an unthinking “I’m in college so I’m a liberal” phase. I think I’ve gone through a lot of deep thought exercises and have come to understand politics and the philosophies behind many different ideological factions a lot better. And this has led me more and more toward liberalism, though not the same exact type I espoused at 19. Thanks for the links and for reading, as always Jack.
In response to another comment. See in context »Erik:
I’d push it a little further than that, but along the same lines. Rather than “examination,” I’d say “disillusion.
Dunno if I’ve told you this before, I bring it up every now and then in my argumentation, but to truly understand politics, you have to go through profound disillusionment twice.
So someone like David Horowitz (left to right) or Arianna Huffington (right to left) are really only halfway done.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Denise Taylor, E.D. Kain. E.D. Kain said: On Noonan, civility, and the futility of politics http://tinyurl.com/24rdlba @trueslant [...]
E.D.,
If not for the blogspat with Sanders, this post would die in the echo chamber of The Lonely Electron.
focus, buddy, FOCUS. Peggy Noonan is Maureen Dowd redux in GOP robes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30dowd.html
Noonan was at her creative zenith while hoing for Bush the Elder. Today she is just a shrill shill for the entrenched American oligarchy. Sort of a David Brooks with a tattered dance card. Be angry, but be mindful of the organic nature of your subject. Intellectual consistency is not generally an attribute of rabid critters.
Are you going to call Frank Rich a wingnut for what he wrote today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30rich.html?hp
” But for the rest of us, there’s the nagging fear that the largest oil spill in our history could yet prove worse if it drags on much longer. It might not only wreck the ecology of a region but capsize the principal mission of the Obama presidency.”
I’m not particularly impressed with Rich’s portrayal of the situation, to be honest. It’s sort of un-focused and rambling and doesn’t really cut to the chase at any point. Rich is correct (as are many critics of Obama) that more could have been done by the president, but he also mentions (correctly) that much of this would have been little more than showmanship.
What all crisis-mongers forget is that once a crisis has passed, politicians usually live to fight another day. Bush could well have survived Katrina were he not embroiled in two foreign wars. There are many, many more things that could end up saving Obama’s presidency, not the least of which is a real uptick in employment numbers.
In response to another comment. See in context »Jack:
Well I’ve had at least two, probably three periods of political disillusionment. I should be okay now? Scary to think of Huffington going all right-winger.
Erik:
Oh, once you go through the second, you’re free to to be whatever you want, moonbat, wingnut, Episcopal, whatever.
:^{)>
Arianna was a thoroughly obnoxious wingnut in her day.
In response to another comment. See in context »