Peggy Noonan: The Blame Is Ours, but I'm Actually Still Right in My Political Perception

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

Oh, Peg o' my heart. How your hermetically sealed fan club longed and were also certain of the outcome you crystal-balled a scant five days ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101777996

But it didn't turn out that way. How shocking!

So what happened? The Pegster herself has a ready answer, it would seem:

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html


President Obama did not lose, he won. It was not all that close. There was enthusiasm on his side. Mitt Romney's assumed base did not fully emerge, or rather emerged as smaller than it used to be. He appears to have received fewer votes than John McCain. The last rallies of his campaign neither signaled nor reflected a Republican resurgence. Mr Romney's air of peaceful dynamism was the product of a false optimism that, in the closing days, buoyed some conservatives and swept some Republicans. While GOP voters were proud to assert their support with lawn signs, Democratic professionals were quietly organizing, data mining and turning out the vote. Their effort was a bit of a masterpiece; it will likely change national politics forever. Mr. Obama was perhaps not joyless but dogged, determined, and tired.

Apart from those points, everything in my blog post of Nov. 5 stands.

So is she uncharacteristically mocking herself with the blunt second paragraph that refers back to her election eve bloviations? I'll give her credit for acknowledging that she was totally full of it on Nov. 5.

Much more troubling, though, is what comes toward the end of Miss Noonan's most recent Etch-a-Sketch (call it "projection&quot moment:


It is and has been a proud Republican assumption—a given, a faith—that we are a center-right country and, barring extraordinary circumstances, will tend to return to our natural equilibrium. That didn't happen this time, for reasons technical, demographic and I think attitudinal: The Democrats stayed hungry and keenly alive to the facts on the ground. The Republicans worked hard but were less clear-eyed in their survey of the field. America has changed and is changing, culturally, ethnically—we all know this. Republican candidates and professionals will have to put aside their pride, lose their assumptions, and in the future work harder, better, go broader and deeper.

"For reasons technical, demographic and I think attitudinal," Obama won! In other words, for all the right reasons anyone ever wins an election!

The Republicans were "less clear-eyed." Indeed, Peg. They were not exactly tuned in, and you apparently remain so.

Why, for instance, does she continue to believe that we're still center-right? The left-of-center party has won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. Yes, some states -- in particular in the lower South and the western Plains where population growth is stagnant -- have been turning a deeper Red over the past 20 years. But so many more with expanding populations -- Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, etc. -- are moving in exactly the opposite direction. I think she still doesn't get it.

[Metro135]

1. Peggy-poo

I always picture dear old Peg writing her columns wearing a pair of white gloves, pearls around her neck, with a bottle of cooking sherry nearby.

I love this:
Republican candidates and professionals will have to put aside their pride, lose their assumptions, and in the future work harder, better, go broader and deeper.

Work harder to do what Peggy? Cover up their lies? Disenfranchise more minority voters? They're going to go broader and deeper all right -- deeper into the abyss.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Less clear-eyed, less full-hearted

You lost.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Peggy Noonan never accepts that a Democrat will be re-elected

I'll never forget her pompous and face-contorted appearance on CNN after the 1994 midterm and looking ahead to 1996, (paraphrased): "We made a mistake. It's okay to make a mistake. We'll get it right next time."

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Just more of Noonan's arrogant, myopic crap, but there was a gem among the comments:

"Peggy, are you a mind reader or a blathering idiot? Did you do a survey or an exit poll to come up your statements regarding the sentiments of people who voted for President Obama? You don't speak for my neighbors, co-workers, family, friends or me. You don't speak for the people in my district, city or state.

I live in a high rent district of a major northeast city. I worked the November 6 polls from 5 a.m. 9 p.m., only taking one five-minute break and a one-hour dinner break. The lines were out the door and down the block. Every person who requested my assistance in explaining the ballot was enthused about who they were voting for. I witnessed the excitement and smiles on their faces as they looked at me and mouthed "Obama." They gave me thumbs up, assuming that I supported President Obama. All day and into the night, countless voters--men and women, young and elderly, professionals and laborers, retired people and students, people from all backgrounds and people who barely spoke English were jubilant and confident about their candidate. All day and night they whispered and sometimes mouthed, "Obama”, “Let’s go, Obama,” "I love Obama,” "where do I mark Obama,” and “where is the line for Obama?” There were Romney supporters who acted in a more subdued manner (I interacted with a total of four). Perhaps my polling place got all those excited, enthusiastic Obama supporters that attended his rallies. They had to vote somewhere. Maybe they were not in the town where you dreamed up Obama voters’ sentiment. I suspect you are spewing faux facts based on your own biases. That’s the same con game Republican politicians and pundits ran during the campaign. And that is one of the reason Mitt Romney lost.

You say, “It matters when you show people you care. It matters when you're there. It matters when you ask.”

I say, “You didn’t show you cared because you didn’t care. You weren’t there because it didn’t matter. And you didn’t ask because you didn’t give a d#m.“

You also pointed out that President Obama won the election in 2008 by 9.5 million votes but this November 6 he won by less than three million. I will point out that President Obama is only the second democratic president in the history of America to win re-election by more than 50%. He did this despite the mess he was handed. That is chucking amazing.

When you say people are afraid of change, are you referring to people in the red states? I suspect the Reds hate change. They hate inclusiveness, sharing the American dream and learning something new about people that don’t look like them. I ask, “Does the hate stem from envy, ignorance, insecurity, an inferiority complex, propaganda, socialization, mental illness or racism?” Blues and liberals think change is good; change is exciting--more diversity, more culture, more ethnicity and more interesting friendships and families.

"The Republicans worked hard but were less clear-eyed in their survey of the field, " you wrote. Well, I will be a know-it-all like you and write that the Republicans were less clear-minded, less thoughtful, less truthful, less passionate, less informed, less thrilled and less in love with their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. They love their country less because they hate President Obama more. Just go to the video tapes. Review all the hate filled Republican speeches, public and private. Peruse the talk show transcripts. You only have to read your own transcript and editorials.

Obama’s supporters are not afraid of change. Just look at his rallies. See the love. See the diversity. See the change?"

[PsychProfessor]

5. Amazing!!!!!

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Yes, it was like a rare pearl in a whole pile of manure...

[Servius Valerius]

7. He forgot "Principle." Not that those other causes aren't there for some.

I suspect the Reds hate change. They hate inclusiveness, sharing the American dream and learning something new about people that don’t look like them. I ask, “Does the hate stem from envy, ignorance, insecurity, an inferiority complex, propaganda, socialization, mental illness or racism?” Blues and liberals think change is good; change is exciting--more diversity, more culture, more ethnicity and more interesting friendships and families.

Change itself is just that... change. Jobs numbers down- change. Imports up- change. Change is morally neutral. Everyone wants good change. And to discern good changes from bad changes can require us to display consideration and patience.

Are there conservatives who dislike change for all the wrong reasons? Assuredly yes. Just like there are some within the progressive coalition who might actively hate Christianity on the basis of the Liberty University version of it, or resent the wealthy, or sneer on poor whites as trailer trash, etc. A lot of people do things for the wrong reasons, whether the things themselves turn out right or wrong.

Some conservatives take principled stands about the pace of change, because they fear that over-rapid change deprives the public of time to patiently and carefully weigh the consequences. A deference to the traditions that have stood the test of time, a bias towards limited government, a preference for self-determination of localities and states above command by the federal government- these are not hallmarks of hateful or small minds. They are debatable, and there come times for overturning bad traditions. But there is neither hate nor envy manifest in a love for Permanence that is cautious about the promises of Progress.

For instance:

I am 100% for gay marriage. I love my gay friends, and hope that they find themselves able to marry and have their marriage recognized. I also recognize that this will have implications for what many consider their religious liberties to act according to conscience- I accept this, but this isn't often recognized in our national dialogue. Progress for them will buck Permanence for many. I make that trade gladly, but recognize its existence.

Read this article. Yes, a Standard piece, and yes, it has a valid point. Marriage is woven into the fabric of the US legal structure, and those private organizations that do not wish to recognize gay marriage will have to do so in practice or shut down. Certain charities, adoption agencies, and their like may be crowded out because of conflicts between the tenets of law and the leadings of their faith. This is deeply unfortunate, because the exercise of religious liberty has a long history in our culture, and these charitable groups do have a footprint.

I tend to vote liberal. But I recognize the place of principled conservatism in our national dialogue, and wish that progressives would avoid characterizing conservatives as: mean-spirited, ignorant, dishonest, confused, non-reflective, etc. Yes, there are such representatives, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly come to mind. Ignore them.

To repair our nation and national dialogue, we must put behind us such attacks and other childish things. The road to post-partisanship and progress in Congress is paved with unconditional love and respect for our fellow men and women.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. Agree that a credible, conservative counter-balance is essential to a functioning democracy.

As you said:
"I tend to vote liberal. But I recognize the place of principled conservatism in our national dialogue, and wish that progressives would avoid characterizing conservatives as: mean-spirited, ignorant, dishonest, confused, non-reflective, etc."

Unfortunately, all those qualifiers and much worse (traitorous, seditious, un-American, criminally parasitic, etc. etc.) constitute the daily attacks of the RW on Dems and liberals, not to mention the poor and dispossessed.

RW hate radio and Fox News demonize half of the populace on a daily basis in the public arena.

Civil discourse becomes almost impossible in such a highly charged environment.

[Paladin]

6. Have Another Martini, Peg. (nt)