Noonan on Republican Need to Talk to Each Other

Peggy Noonan is usually very sober, though living on the Upper East Side of Meanhattan [sic] means she sometimes drifts into unconscious tropes of liberal-brainfart BS. Here she voices some uncomfortable truths:

If Mitt Romney had won this year, he would have had a very tough presidency, with the left revived and the coffers empty and the president having to move deftly, brilliantly, to summon and keep support. And while there were many things in Mr. Romney's toolbox, deft political brilliance wasn't one of them. Meanwhile, demographic and cultural changes would have proceeded apace. So 2016 and after would have been brutal for the party.

Yes, much as I admired the tall, dark & handsome Mitt, he was an atavism from the fifties in many respects, and his stubbornness in keeping Stuart Spencer churning out strange stuff on his behalf showed that as POTUS, he would have been susceptible to frequent faux pas. But Noonan falls into nitpicking and non sequiturs in her caustic and silly complaints about Ryan & Rubios' recent speeches at the Jack Kemp dinner in NYC.

Rep. Ryan's speech was OK but insufficient. He didn't say anything terrible but he didn't stake out new ground or take chances. Actually, the part where he said Mitt Romney made "a big election about big ideas and offering serious solutions to serious problems" was slightly terrible because it isn't in a general way true, and it forestalls analysis that might actually be helpful in the long term. Mr. Ryan got points for loyalty but no one doubts he's loyal, and it undercut his central message, which is that the Republican Party needs "new thinking," "fresh ideas and serious leadership," and must find "new ways to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of today."

Well, yes, that's true. But what thinking do you suggest? In what area? Which fresh ideas? Do you have one?

The thrust of Mr. Ryan's remarks seemed to suggest the party has to show its economic stands are aligned with the views of the working and middle classes. Fine. But how, exactly? What changes should be made, not just to message, but to content?

If conservatives are going to appeal to the nonrich, perhaps we want to be talking about—I don't know, let's float an idea—breaking up the banks? Too big to fail is too big to live, didn't we learn that in 2008? Why aren't we debating this? How about doing away with the carried interest deduction? Would billionaire hedge-fund contributors not like that? Isn't that just kind of . . . too bad?

Those are two ideas that, while politically difficult, would have broad populist appeal and are conservative in essence.

This is not the time to be describing the problem—we need "new thinking"—it's the time to start coming up with the new thinking.

And the splendid orator and spellbinding narrator Sen. Rubio doesn't get better marks than Cong. Ryan... Watch the spinster aunt cackle at Marco for not giving an inaugural address manqué at the Kemp affair...

Sen. Rubio had a better speech in that it was deeper, more broadly philosophical and less prescriptive. He told of how he'd spoken, at the August convention, of his father, a bartender in banquet halls. Recently he spoke in a "fancy" hotel in New York—that was rather Sarah Palin, the "fancy"—and the ballroom workers gave him a badge that said "Rubio, Banquet Bartender." He should wear that badge on his suit every day. It's better symbolism than Mr. Romney's car elevator.

But Mr. Rubio also indulged a rhetorical tic that we hear a lot and that is deeply obnoxious. He said the words "middle class" 12 times on the first page alone. Repeating that phrase mantra-like will not make people think you're concerned about the middle class, it will only make them think you're concerned about winning the middle class. It is important to remember in politics that people aren't stupid.

I find both Mr. Ryan's and Mr. Rubio's media expertise mildly harrowing—look at the prompter here, shake your head here, lower your voice there, raise it here, pick up your pace in this section. An entire generation of politicians in both parties has been too trained in media, and to their detriment. They are very smooth but it doesn't make them seem more convincing, it makes them seem phonier. My old boss had actually been an actor, but he didn't seem like a phony. He talked like a normal person at a podium, with a nice voice, and occasionally stumbling. It's not bad to be human when you're trying to appeal to humans.

These speeches were lauded, but they didn't scour, Abe Lincoln's term for a speech that says what needs saying. We know we need "new thinking." Let's hear it.

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, und so weiter und so fort. But Noonan is not done with the hectoring tone, although the last paras do offer some good advice...

A final note, connected to an earlier point.

Republicans are now in the habit of editing their views, and they've been in it for 10 years. The Bush White House suppressed dissent; talk-radio stars functioned as enforcers; the angrier parts of the base, on the Internet, attempted to silence critical thinkers. Orthodoxy was everything, or orthodoxy as some defined it.

This isn't loyalty, it's lockstep. It has harmed the party's creativity, its ability to think, when now more than ever it has to. Enough. A final note, connected to an earlier point.

Republicans are now in the habit of editing their views, and they've been in it for 10 years. The Bush White House suppressed dissent; talk-radio stars functioned as enforcers; the angrier parts of the base, on the Internet, attempted to silence critical thinkers. Orthodoxy was everything, or orthodoxy as some defined it.

This isn't loyalty, it's lockstep. It has harmed the party's creativity, its ability to think, when now more than ever it has to. Enough.

I hope she doesn't mean Rush when she's talking about Rush, the "Show Me" state's contribution to truth in advertising---even if Limbaugh does get more Catholic than the Pope sometimes.

That would be Upper East Side arrogance pushed to its ne plus ultra. .