« When last we saw them... | Main | Low expectations column »
Sunday, 07 January 2007
Lovely thinker, graceful writer
I first heard of Peggy Noonan as a speechwriter, credited with Bush the First's "thousand points of light." Since that phrase didn't seem particularly remarkable to me, I wasn't particularly impressed, and didn't think any more of her.
Then, sometime around 15 years ago, give or take a couple, I was channel surfing and paused on a documentary, my eye caught by a fine-featured, red-headed woman who spoke with great dignity and intelligence. I don't remember what she was saying; I was just struck by the overall gestalten impression. Cate Blanchett -- whom we knew not at that time -- sometimes tries to portray this combination of ageless beauty, intelligence and grace, and does pretty well. But this was someone who lives that way. Who is that? I thought. They showed her name. Oh. This time, I was impressed. She presented herself and her ideas better than the man for whom she had written.
Finally, I came to know her better through her columns on the OpinionJournal of the WSJ. Her latest is a good example of her work. It's about the importance of ceremony to the life we live in common, about how we live together when we are at our best, our enmities set aside, when we actually become each other's points of light, as it were.
Of course, I can't help being struck by the amount of time she always seems to have on her hands. Imagine being able to sit and watch Gerald Ford's funeral on the tube -- the Times Square thing, or Nancy Pelosi's swearing-in. Who's got that kind of time? Obviously, she does. So do a lot of people she knows, since they're writing to share their observations.
Actually, come to think of it, so do a lot of commenters on this blog (judging by appearances), since they seem to sit around reading blogs and watching the tube and getting whipped up over this or that partisan non-issue of the moment.
Peggy Noonan make far better use of that same time -- and better than I would, too. If my life ever slowed down a bit. (To use something from the popular culture, picture me as one of those characters -- Cary Grant, if you're inclined to be generous, someone else if you're not -- in a fast-talking screwball comedy about newspaper life in Ben Hecht's day. I may rip the latest bulletin off the teletype machine as I pass by, long-ashed cigarette flipping up and down out of one side of my mouth as I yell at a copy boy out of the other, and see that Gerald Ford has indeed died -- but sit still for his funeral? When?) If I had that time, I'd probably cram a DVD into the machine, anything to take my mind from work for a moment.
Because she watches, she's able to see the truth and beauty, say, in the way Mrs. Pelosi assumed power -- something of which the actual opinion page of the Journal itself is incapable. They were busy castigating her for taking a page from Tom Delay. It's what you might call political opinion as usual. Ms. Noonan's writing, at its best, has a graciousness that takes us beyond that.
It calms me down a bit, when I find time to look at it, and I am vicariously thoughtful, dignified and full of proper thoughts toward humanity. (I don't necessarily mean I hold the same thoughts, but she transmits the same calm attitude.) It doesn't last long, but while it lasts, it's good.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 03:28 PM in Character, Civility, Marketplace of ideas
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00d8350a5c9569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lovely thinker, graceful writer:
Comments
"Actually, come to think of it, so do a lot of commenters on this blog (judging by appearances), since they seem to sit around reading blogs and watching the tube and getting whipped up over this or that partisan non-issue of the moment.
Peggy Noonan make far better use of that same time -- and better than I would, too. If my life ever slowed down a bit."
*******************************************
But don't you understand that if you spent some time "sitting around reading blogs and watching the tube" you would be more efficient at your job? You would spend less time doing it, and you would do it better. I spent a few minutes reading blogs and watching Olbermann, and I knew all about the Saddam Huseein execution, and about John McCain's dishonest pandering.
You spent however much time you spent thinking about and writing about the Saddam Hussein execution, but you were too "busy" to "sit around reading blogs and watching the tube", so you didn't know what happened, and so you screwed it up. EVERY BIT OF TIME you spent thinking about it and writing about it was wasted, because you scorned the simple techniques that would have yielded important information that vitiated your conclusions.
What's shocking, though, is that you evidently didn't read the VERY ARTICLE that you used to draw your conclusions about John McCain. You referred to and quoted the article in order to support a conclusion that was the direct opposite of any conclusion that could be drawn from the facts recited in the article.
You're engaged in so much activity because you approach your job in the wrong way. Don't you understand that understanding the facts is the most important thing that a commentator can do? WHY do you sneer at others for spending time learning what's going on?
The general proposition that an open trial of a dictator, conducted under accepted law is a good thing is reasonable, and it's a reasonable thing to talk about. But don't you understand that if you're going to talk about Saddam Hussein's execution, you have to take into account WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED? It is sad, but Saddam Hussein was NOT executed as a result of a procedure conducted under accepted law; he was evidently handed over to the Mahdi Army so that they could conduct a sectarian lynching. THAT'S IMPORTANT. It would have been well worth the 3 or 4 minutes it would have taken to familiarize yourself with those facts, because it would have kept you from humiliating yourself by writing what you did.
I have an idea for something you could do that would save you some time, which you could then spend finding out facts. Why not quit spending so much time pretending you're not a partisan Republican? How much time do you spend pretending to be nonpartisan, for example, decrying the time spent on "the latest partisan non-issue"? How long did that phrase take you to write? At least 3 or 4 seconds, right? That's 3 or 4 seconds you could have spent finding out facts.
And I don't know what you mean by "partisan non-issue". The latest issue on which there's something of a partisan divide is the McCain Doctrine, which I estimate will endanger more of our soldiers, to no purpose. I know that you were safe at home during the Vietnam war, and you're safe at home now, and you may therefore be able to think of the safety of our soliders as a "partisan non-issue", but I feel that it's an issue of vital importance to the United States.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 7, 2007 11:00:15 PM
Young says it best:
We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand
We got department stores
and toilet paper
Got styrofoam boxes
for the ozone layer
Got a man of the people,
says keep hope alive
Got fuel to burn,
got roads to drive.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Jan 8, 2007 12:22:09 AM
Mary, Brad is too busy to keep up with current events; too busy to personally support the war that he hungers to escalate.
He's obviously not too busy volunteering at VA hospitals. As a sympathetic parent, I'd cut him some slack-- if his ignorance didn't pre-date his daughter's illness by many months.
You'd think that the editor of the editorial page would find the time to stay informed on the most important issue facing our country.
But, you'd be wrong.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 8, 2007 12:48:05 AM
Pelosi is trying to project the image of the loving grandmother from Baltimore, and a Catholic to boot. The reality is she is an abortion loving homo supporter. But back to Noonan, who recently on a C-Span panel on abortion literally devastated EJ Dionne when she so articulately noted that the Democrats continually pronounce themselves as the part of the little people, and Peggy then went on to ask how they could not protect and support the littlest of the little people waiting to come out of the womb. Very powerful.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 8, 2007 6:47:05 AM
Ok Dave since you brought it up, articulate your position on abortion? Do you imprison a 16 year old girl if she seeks an abortion? How about the doctor? Do you make any exceptions for rape or incest? The problem with pro lifers, like most conservative positions, is they rant and rave about the problems with the liberal position without actually saying what they would do. Well here's your chance.
Posted by: bud | Jan 8, 2007 8:27:05 AM
While any illness of one's children is stressful, Brad's daughter's dehydration from a stomach bug doesn't seem to be the life threatening drama his original post from the ER seemed to imply. But, then, if an editoral writer couldn't spin an event to match his pontification, what good would he be?
Posted by: Steve | Jan 8, 2007 11:40:47 AM
Bud, there you go again with the citing of very infrequent exceptions to the norm. But I will try to answer. The 16 year old, if not forcibly raped, must have the child, and it can be adopted. In a case of rape or incest, I would permit an abortion but discourage it. If incest is involved, the incestor (?) would be castrated if the DNA matched. Rapists, after they are caught, would be required to pay for the child for the rest of the child's and their life. If they cannot afford to pay support, they go to prison and pound rocks for a living. Abortion doctors who perform illegal abortions lose their license to practice and get a 5 year mandatory prison sentence for each abortion.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 8, 2007 1:35:53 PM
"But, then, if an editoral writer couldn't spin an event to match his pontification, what good would he be?"
Wouldn't such an editorial writer be one of the greatest editorial writers of all time?
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 8, 2007 1:39:09 PM
"The reality is she is an abortion loving homo supporter."
"Bud, there you go again with the citing of very infrequent exceptions to the norm. But I will try to answer. The 16 year old, if not forcibly raped, must have the child, and it can be adopted. In a case of rape or incest, I would permit an abortion but discourage it. If incest is involved, the incestor (?) would be castrated if the DNA matched. Rapists, after they are caught, would be required to pay for the child for the rest of the child's and their life. If they cannot afford to pay support, they go to prison and pound rocks for a living. Abortion doctors who perform illegal abortions lose their license to practice and get a 5 year mandatory prison sentence for each abortion."
Lovely... crude with just the right touch of bigotry. This particular troglodyte certainly lingers on the palate.
Posted by: Lily | Jan 8, 2007 1:43:35 PM
Dave, you still haven't answered the big question. What penalty does the 16 year old receive if she breaks the law and gets an abortion anyway? Is this murder and hence subject to the death penalty. If it's some lessor crime, why? If we accept that abortion is a pre-meditated taking of a human life the taking of that life should result in the same consequences.
Furthermore, you still allow exceptions, though grudgingly, for rape and incest. Are babies created from rapes just as human as other babies? If so the same "sanctity of life" arguments still apply. In that case the crime of abortion, along with the penalty, should be the same as if the baby was created through concensual means. And if you allow for the rape exception who makes this determination?
If you believe in both the death penalty and are pro-life wouldn't the logical conclusion is to put to death any women who has an abortion? If you invoke any lessor penalty then you are tacitly admitting that an unborn child is not in the same category of human as one who is already born. Once you take that step then the only logical position to take is pro-choice. You really can't have it both ways. Either you're pro-life or you're not.
Posted by: bud | Jan 8, 2007 2:53:52 PM
Lily, hi. Welcome back. I thought your name was familiar, so I went back to check. Your only previous comment was to ask, "why wouldn't you draft women?" I'm sorry I've never come back and done a separate post on that subject; I meant to. I'll try to get to it soon. Obviously, it's not a simple answer.
On another subject -- actually, back to the original one -- look at the Peggy Noonan piece in question. Then look at the tone of many of the comments above. Do you see why I admire and respect the way she writes -- particularly, the way she deals with people with whom she disagrees?
It's an important distinction. And if I'm going to keep doing this blog, it's really important that folks appreciate that particular quality. We really need to learn to converse as grownups; the Blogosphere definitely does not need one more playground brawl.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jan 8, 2007 3:13:18 PM
You appreciate Peggy Noonan because she is a speech writer, not someone who actually does something meaningful.
Style over substance... rhetoric over reality... vocabulary over vocation...
I'm wondering if you intended your blog to simply be a place where you could post your latest big government screed and wait for the hosannas to accumulate? Did you ever stop to consider how few of the people who actually take the time to read what you write agree with you? Do you think that's an anomaly of the blogosphere?
Posted by: Steve | Jan 8, 2007 4:27:18 PM
Brad, hello back to you, and thanks for responding to my earlier question. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the subject.
I re-read the Noonan piece with your comment in mind. And I agree with you - if this blog is going to succeed it will have to mature into an real discussion of different points of view rather than the slugfest I often read. It truly is difficult to keep from snarling back in kind when you feel your personal ethics have been spat upon... anyone who is able to respond with grace under those circumstances, such as Ms. Noonan, deserves the respect of those who agree and those who disagree. We do seem to live in a culture that increasingly celebrates both disrespect and anger... why our society rewards this behavior is maybe a topic for another post. But I pledge to you that, if I continue to participate in your blog, I will do so with civility and not insolence; name-calling never really solved anything.
Posted by: Lily | Jan 8, 2007 5:14:50 PM
Some facts about Peggy Noonan:
Speechwriter for Reagan and Bush Sr. (not partisan, no, not at all)
Divorced Catholic (guess those rules don't apply to everyone)
Coined the phrases "kinder, gentler nation" and "a thousand points of light", and the famous "read my lips, no new taxes" (three of the least believable utterances of the 1990's)...
Worked as a consultant for Bush Jr.'s 2004 campaign (was that the kinder, gentler one??)
Oh, and Brad will love this quote from a recent Peggy Noonan piece:
"Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This--listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity--is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing."
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009078
Guess Peggy gets it, huh, Brad?
Posted by: Steve | Jan 8, 2007 6:13:02 PM
Lily, I am glad you are committing to the civility thing and all. If you are true to your word, you won't have to worry about Festus, or was that Gabby Hayes, tossing you out of this high classed saloon. And, I laughed when I saw the bit about the troglodyte. I can tell you this, if this nation would adopt and enforce the laws I want, our crime rate would soon be that of maybe Switzerland's, and pregnant teenagers would become the rare event that it should be. But, I am realistic, and this society wants to categorize even rapists as victims (after all, because their mothers or sisters were probably mean to them, they rape) and life isnt respected, so the liberal media worries about Saddam's hanging and its cruelty, but cares nothing about an 8 and a half month old fetus having its head crushed by a pair of metal tongs so it won't survive a delivery. So, yes, some of the wording is brutal and crude, but that is life in the big city nowadays. But let's be civil about it.
And Bud, the least guilty in the whole abortion racket is the 16 year old girl. I would propose no punishment for her, as she will suffer a lifelong punishment of guilt and sorrow over the killing of an offspring. That is punishment enough and if anything she needs prayer and counseling for a long time.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 8, 2007 6:24:52 PM
Dave, you preaching to others about civility is awesome. I am going to start selling T-shirts with the slogan "Irony is not a Crime". You can be my first customer.
Reading your post on what to do about punishing abortions, I threw up in my mouth, and then actually physically felt my soul die a little. People like you, while entitled to their thoughts, ought only be able to share them with their State Hospital Psychiatrist.
Oh yeah, 1838 called, and it wants its midset back. Just go crawl back under that unused copy of the "Book of Mormon" that you came out from under.
Posted by: Preston | Jan 8, 2007 6:56:02 PM
Preston, so you have a personal State Hospital Psych. - hmmmmmmmmmmmm - they're comin to take you away, ho ho, comin to take you away, hee hee, ho ho, hee hee
Now, instead of posting personal criticism, how about posting what is actually in that partially dead little brain on this subject. Try it.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 9, 2007 6:48:30 AM
the least guilty in the whole abortion racket is the 16 year old girl. I would propose no punishment for her, as she will suffer a lifelong punishment of guilt and sorrow over the killing of an offspring. That is punishment enough and if anything she needs prayer and counseling for a long time.
So, Dave, I guess that you think Susan Smith shouldn't have been prosecuted for murder?
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 9, 2007 11:12:22 AM
Let's explore Dave's World.
Any girl who is impregnated will be forced to carry the zygote/embryo until it can viably survive outside the womb.
Then what, Dave? Does the gubmint force this teenager to keep the baby and go to school? Are you willing to pay higher taxes for daycare centers in high schools? Does the gubmint expand the welfare system to ensure the safety and welfare of the baby?
Wait! Is your answer capitalism? Should we sell off the unwanted babies? What kind of demand do you predict for HIV positive babies or babies impaired due to the mom's acvtivities during pregnancy?
Maybe we should turn the unwanted babies over to faith-based children's homes. Naturally, these institutions will require tax expenditures while indoctrinating the kids. Would a Muslim children's home qualify, Dave? Would you like to pay more taxes for little girls to learn to wear a burqa a worship Mohammed?
Perhaps you'd volunteer to adopt one of these babies, Dave. How many dark skinned foster kids would you agree to raise?
Nevermind, Dave. Your refusal to volunteer for Iraq tells us all we need to know about the Republican Party's "personal responsibility" mantra.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 9, 2007 11:44:15 AM
"Now, instead of posting personal criticism, how about posting what is actually in that partially dead little brain on this subject."
"I can tell you this, if this nation would adopt and enforce the laws I want, our crime rate would soon be that of maybe Switzerland's, and pregnant teenagers would become the rare event that it should be."
Two beautiful sentences. Did you really tell me to refrain from personal criticism, and then wait only until after the comma to personally attack me and my intelligence? Awesome.
Your delusional "if I were king" rant rivals only Lee for Circus Clown Supremacy on this blog. Keep 'em coming.
Posted by: Preston | Jan 9, 2007 1:16:43 PM
The abortion issue is one that I'm very uncomfortable with. I personally, believe or not Lee and Dave, find it reprehensible that someone could voluntarily destroy the life of an unborn child. Yet crafting an intellectually defensible law that would actually curb the number of abortions is virtually impossible. Dave's awkward, rambling defense of the pro-life position demonstrates this much better than I ever could.
Bill Clinton has the best philosophy on this issue. He believes that public policy should keep abortions legal, safe and rare. The pro-life position, when examined in detail, does none of the three. The actual merits of pro-life arguments are nonexistent but they do make great bumper stickers.
Posted by: bud | Jan 9, 2007 3:43:15 PM
The pro-life position is yet another conservative dogma that works only in the very limited context of appearances. Everything seems so simple to the conservative. The best way to battle the terrorists it to kill them. The most effective way to reduce crime is to kill the criminals. The sanctity of life must be protected by a government ban on abortion. What is interesting about all this is how many conservative positions require a substantial use of government resources. Government must raise huge armies and force soldiers to go 6,000 miles to fight the terrorists. The government must kill convicted murderers. Government must pass and enforce laws regarding women's use of their bodies. Heck, conservatives force the government down our throats at every turn. Yet they have the audacity to claim it's the liberals who want to interfere in people's lives. If nothing else today's conservative has no shortage of moxy.
Posted by: bud | Jan 9, 2007 3:54:43 PM
Bud, what is more simple than right vs wrong? Liberals as I can see, and I mean the leftist progressive types, not pure liberals, cannot distinguish when someone does something wrong. Every activity is justified or rationalized as someone else's fault. That is a fundamental difference between right and left. And the right wants women and men to control their OWN bodies, not create a baby and kill it because they could not control biological hormonal urges. The Bible spells it all out for those interested enough to read it and understand it. Calling Herb, over and out.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 9, 2007 6:37:34 PM
bud, to my knowledge, the current state of affairs has done little to make abortion safe or rare; it's mostly just made it legal. The rest is rhetoric from people who simply want to maintain the status quo.
I will stand corrected if anyone has credible evidence to the contrary, but from what I've seen, this is a largely unexamined area. What does legality really do to keep abortions "safe" (for one of the people involved, anyway)? You hear about docs who get in trouble for prescribing steroids for jocks, or who are just a little too generous with their prescription pads in general, but how often do you hear of a sloppy abortionist being shut down by regulators?
You ever meet anyone who regulates abortion clinics for a living? I haven't, although I've known a number of regulators of day cares, to name but one of many areas of human endeavor that the government has a legitimate interest in.
FYI, the last time I remember anybody in South Carolina even raising the issue was this story
by Diane Lore of The State back in 1992. Here are the first few paragraphs, in case you have trouble with the link:
STATE AGENCIES LACK POWER
TO REGULATE ABORTION CLINICS
Published on: 07/19/1992
Section: METRO/REGION
Edition: FINAL
Page: 1A
By DIANE LORE, Medical Writer
Although one in five pregnant South Carolinians has an abortion, the state
doesn't regulate the 13 clinics that perform almost all of those procedures.No government agency regularly inspects those clinics, which performed 98 percent of the state's abortions in 1991. Doctors are monitored by their medical board, but the facilities aren't accountable to anyone unless they choose to be.
"It's really a difficult dilemma," said Kara Anderson of the Planned Parenthood Federation in New York City. "You don't want places to be overregulated, and yet, you're a very trusting soul to go to a clinic without some sort of regulation in place."
It's also a national dilemma. The National Abortion Federation, for example, has drafted model abortion regulations in response to about a dozen states' inquiries for help.
And while South Carolina clinics report they have a clean slate, critics say that's because no government agency has kept data on them or been designated to help patients who complain....
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jan 9, 2007 6:50:41 PM
Thanks, Lily. If I don't get back to your women-and-the-draft question, call me on it. I tried answering it in a reply to your comment, but after a couple of hundred words that hardly got me started on the topic, I realized I'd better come back and make it a separate.
And Steve, it's no surprise that Peggy Noonan is a Republican. I mentioned that. Surely you don't think that's some sort of "gotcha" on your part. Nobody was trying to hide it from you.
Her virtue is her civility, whether people agree with her or not.
Oh, and I don't respect her because she's a speechwriter, but because of the way she writes speeches -- and columns.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jan 9, 2007 7:06:01 PM
