Peggy Noonan on the Democrats

[John Cole]

brad,

I'm really only attacking--and that word is too strong--Noonan's attaching the label of "pro-abortion" to the Democratic party. And, no, it's not just a matter of semantics because what we choose to call things has a very real bearing on how we look at the world. Don't get me wrong; I am not in *favor* of abortion, but that's hardly relevant. Noonan's playing the semantics game, and if I said all Republicans were in favor of women having rapists' babies, I would be playing the same game. At least I know that's not ethical. Your approach--abortion should or shouldn't be legal--reduces a complex argument to a simple either/or choice, and, I think, fails to address all the ramifications of real arguments that swirl around this question.

John

[Rick Nebiolo]

John,

You wrote: " Rick, I read the rest of Noonan's speech,"

If it sounds like a speech it should, since she wrote it in the form of a letter to her friend.

"and, of course, I can't find much to praise, except perhaps for her admiration of Adlai Stevenson, who once said, "In America anybody can grow up to be president. That's just the chance you'll have to take." (Isn't that enough to merit admiration?)

Stevenson was good with words. BTW, in the fifties' the Democrats were a different party. I would have voted with them back then.

"Note her highly unethical wording when she calls the Democrats the pro-abortion party."

She actually wrote: " but a party of often warring pressure groups. The pro-abortion lobby, the affirmative-action lobby, other lobbies.

I agree that pro-life lobby would have been better, but it isn't highly unethical. That issue uses polarizing rhetoric on both sides.

"Wouldn't you object if I called the Republicans the anti-women party.'

Yes. It would be a cheap shot and an unfair analogy. So called "woman's issues" aren't as ideological or polarized as the abortion (ok, right to chose) issue. There are many woman's issues (or issues that have greater importance to women in general), and in many cases the conservative or Republican positions on issues are favored by women.

"Furthermore, she attempts to polarize an issue that many Americans really aren't that extreme about to begin with. Remember, polls show that 70% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose, but also oppose abortion as a means of birth control. Noonan, though, can't seem to accept this, and her stance should provoke readers to question her inflammatory rhetoric."

Read the following passage again.

" The Democratic Party has grown not less radical on abortion, but more. Your party won't even agree to ban third-term abortions--which is the abortion of a baby who looks and seems fully human and capable of life because he is. The Democrats oppose parental consent even in the cases of 14-year-olds who are themselves children. It opposes directing doctors to inform frightened young women before an abortion is performed that there are other options, other possible paths.

This is so radical. So out of touch with the feeling and thought of the vast middle of the country. So at odds with our self-image as a nation. We think we try to protect the vulnerable. We think we're kind.

Read stripped of your filter, Noonan's comments are reasonable IMO. The Democrats are the party out of touch here.

"She also asserts that Democrats are snobs--and, losing all credulity, uses busing in Boston to make her case."

She primarily makes her case using gun control and other issues. She makes a good case IMO.

"In another end run, she accuses the Dems of robbing poor people through unjust taxes."

I reread the essay. I can't find anything remotely resembling what you alluded to above. Perhaps a quote from the text would help me.

(Conveniently, she can't quite remember if she gave the poor woman who had lost her money a handout. Yet, her memory seems not to have failed her when recalling other significant moments from her past.)

At first, her not remembering giving the women money struck me as odd too. But I just rethought this. My guess she probably gave the woman money and probably remembers it. But she might have wanted to sound self-effacing, and decided to write that "I helped her report it and I think I gave her money."


"Andy has already provided trenchant commentary on Noonan's association of the Democrats with Mao, et al., and I think you must even find her position at least vague here, if not completely duplicitious."

Maybe.

"I think, though, what bothers me most about Noonan's writing--and much conservative rhetoric as well--is the buried claim that the past was--and always will be--better than the present."

Well, I can't argue with buried claims. I'd just like to see you address the specific passages above.

<snip more "buried claim of the past" stuff>

"yet, she can't remember if she gave the woman on the subway a few bucks. I'd remember, and I know you would, too."

I may or may not remember (I'm very worried about losing memory these days), but I might very well write it the same way as Noonan did unless giving the money was central to the story. I'm self-effacing [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] as you well know.

BTW, we should get Andy and Nancy online on this forum to join the argument. Getting together once every few years in their kitchen just isn't enough. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Regards,

Rick "the imbecile"

[brad]

'Your approach--abortion should or shouldn't be legal--reduces a complex argument to a simple either/or choice, and, I think, fails to address all '

i dont know maybe im pretty dumb but after weighing all factors youre either in favor of abortion being legal or youre not. and if you are i dont think its a big deal although now i think i know what you mean youre saying a lot of people might think the d are *promoting* abortion. but i think most people who hear pro-abortion just think the group is in favor of keeping abortion legal.

[John Cole]

Rick,

Probably I made a little too much out of her concluding remarks about the R's leaving more money in people's pockets and reducing the size of government. (Of course, I do need to keep reminding myself how much extra money I have now every time I marvel at the shrinking federal government now that we have Bush in office. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] ). Perhaps the mantra is now so familiar I unfairly judged Noonan as guilty by association--sorry for the McCarthyism.

I do agree that D's hurt themselves with unqualified support of all abortions, but responsible people at abortion clinics do provide counseling to all who wish to have abortions. (And, I think this will most likely get me into trouble, but I'm not sure notifying parents is a good idea.) No, I don't think Democrats are out of touch with the majority of Americans on this issue at all.

She says that the Dems are are party of warring pressure groups and then raises the "pro-abortion" group. I don't think I'm reading her intent wrongly, but she could pull a Quadnines and back out of this one. I will concede your point, though.

Rick, reread the passage on busing in Boston. Noonan knows full well the problem was not the distance that students were forced to travel, and to even utter this suggests her understanding of race relations in the US died with her early idealism.

Finally, you don't really beleive she's self-effacing, do you? I know you are, and you wouldn't have included any mention of this.

One final point: she demonstrates that Bush reaches out to the great middle class and its values, yet she fails to look at how the great middle class looks at the abortion issue at the same time.

John

[John Cole]

brad,

You're absolutely right. The longer people hear "pro-abortion" the more they see the issue framed in exactly that terminology.

John

[andyfox]

I read Noonan's diatribe one more time.

Noonan calls the Democrats are snobbish, irresponsible, unserious, thoughtless, childish, classless, infant killers, radical, confused, bitter, destructive, communist, radical, corrupt, unprincipled, and incoherent.

Talk about classless and childish.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Andy,

I'm slurping my last sip before zooming out the door to work but tell me for example where she calls the Democrats "infant killers" or "communist".

Regards,

Rick

[snakehead]

I especially liked the part about dems being responsible for the old woman being robbed. makes sense to me.

why do republicans continue to harp on clinton? have any of them noticed that he's not in office any more? and why did they hate him so much when he was in office, even prior to monica? would you feel better if we just said that he was a good president but not a good man?

of course democrats aren't as well organized as republicans. we're too busy going to artsy movies and getting in touch with our true feelings. what else would you expect from the people who are responsible for the moral decay of american society?

sheesh indeed.

[andyfox]

Infant killers:

"no political party primarily funded, supported and led by fierce pro-abortionists, by people whose great interest in life is seeing to it that the right to kill infants is retained, can long endure."

"Your party won't even agree to ban third-term abortions--which is the abortion of a baby who looks and seems fully human and capable of life because he is."

Communists:

"The mistake the Democrats made was to allow their antiwar movement to become infused with bitterness and hostility, with a spirit of destructiveness. By the end the animating spirit of the movement looked something like this: We do not love this place; we prefer leaders unsullied by the grubby demands of electoral politics; we are drawn to the ideological purity of Ho, Fidel, Mao. And by the way we're taking over: Oppose our vision and we'll take care of you by revolutionary means."

"how can you find time to do that when you're busy reforming society top to bottom like little Pol Pots?"

[brad]

well on abortion i think shes factually correct, hey lets live with it its ugly.

on communists i think it applies very narrowly ( j. fonda, berkeley, etc.)