Not so, Peggy
Peggy Noonan said today, on Meet the Press, that "... we have huge disagreements in this country. If we stick to the facts, and show respect, the right side probably will win."
I deny that.
Issues that rise to the level of national debate don’t have “answers,” as if some clever alignment of policies will fix every problem. National issues get pushed up the ladder because they don’t have clever fixes. They have conflicting values that can’t be reconciled. We have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and when Peter gets robbed, he doesn’t shrug it off. Usually the parties have differences, and those differences are legitimate.
But there’s a mega-debate about the size of government, and with every individual issue, it debunks Noonan’s assurance that the right side will swim. Government expansion is inevitable. Our constitution gives us the mechanism to shrink the government, but the constitution is wielded by politicians, and ay, there’s the rub.
- We’d prefer that the free market resolve every issue, but some problems would require free market adjustments that would take too many years to establish. We can’t afford the interim.
- So we have the temptation to turn to government, to coerce behavior where the profit motive can’t coerce fast enough.
- Inevitably, the cost to use government is to invest it with more power than it currently has, and experience shows that when government gets involved, it never relinquishes the power, even if the problem is resolved.
Dealing with each individual problem creates a meta-problem: government never gets smaller. If government would snap back to a pre-problem level of intrusion on national life, then we wouldn’t mind temporary increases in power to address each problem. But it never snaps backward. Each small expansion of government comes at the expense of the free-market. There is no such thing as a temporary expansion of government. It’s always permanent.
Peggy Noonan’s advice that we should calm down and allow the “right” side to win is demonstrably untrue. Individual issues are one thing, but if we step back and examine the inevitable expansion of government, the right side is not winning.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
One problem with this statement is that "the facts" themselves are a matter of disagreement. Is global warming a scientific consensus or a fraud? Did the stimulus create (or save) jobs? Does Gitmo prevent terrorist attacks (by locking up known terrorists) or cause them (by serving as a recruitment tool)? Will Obamacare increase or decrease the deficit? The "facts" vary quite a bit depending on your perspective and fundamental assumptions and values.
Nov '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
I am stunned. This is one of the most brilliant posts I have ever read on Ricochet. Insightful, intelligent and perfectly articulated — as close to a "Unified Theory of Why Government Stinks" as anything I hope to see. Breathtaking. I bow to kiss the hem of Mr. Mulville's robe.
If Ye Olde Editors do not transfer this one immediately to the Main Feed, they will have failed in their duty.
Nov '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
What you are describing is equivocation, Joseph. It is one of the Left's favorite tactics and should be challenged at every opportunity. Liberals are inordinately fond of the notion that Truth has no basis in objective reality. According to them, everyone has a unique view of the "Truth" and each view is as valid as any other (especially their view). This is utter horse pucky. And there is a philosophical name for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Regardless of anyone's selfish worldview or political affiliation, the stimulus absolutely did not create jobs; Obamacare will absolutely increase the deficit; and Man-made Global Warming is absolutely a scientific fraud. As for Gitmo, I think the terrorists should simply be executed rather than imprisoned.
Edited on Jan 16, 2011 at 4:07pmJan '11
Re: Not so, Peggy
Lady Kurobara: I am stunned. This is one of the most brilliant posts I have ever read on Ricochet. Insightful, intelligent and perfectly articulated — as close to a "Unified Theory of Why Government Stinks" as anything I hope to see. Breathtaking. I bow to kiss the hem of Mr. Mulville's robe.
If Ye Olde Editors do not transfer this one immediately to the Main Feed, they will have failed in their duty. · Jan 16 at 3:40pm
High praise indeed. My thanks.
Jun '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Lady Kurobara
What you are describing is equivocation, Joseph. It is one of the Left's favorite tactics and should be challenged at every opportunity. Liberals are inordinately fond of the notion that Truth has no basis in objective reality. According to them, everyone has a unique view of the "Truth" and each view is as valid as any other (especially their view).
Lady K, in my experience liberals mostly reserve relativist arguments for questions of religion, morality, and ethics. In public policy debates they prefer to claim their prescriptions are backed by the facts, science, and the experts. They like to cite published papers and studies as supposed debate killers: global warming is a fact because the IPCC said so, Obamacare will reduce the deficit because the CBO said so, ARRA saved jobs because the CEA said so, etc. And they can always find a leftist academic to cite who will back up their version of "the facts."
Jul '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Essentially, we are where we are because we were Reasonable!
I cannot help my own personal theory that the Tea Party message to Republicans above all else was to "Quit Being Reasonable and Get Serious!"
Peggy, God Love Her, is one of the most reasonable voices on the right. She was so reasonable she gave her endorsement to B.H.O. during the campaign.
Nov '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Joseph Stanko
Lady Kurobara
Liberals are inordinately fond of the notion that Truth has no basis in objective reality. According to them, everyone has a unique view of the "Truth" and each view is as valid as any other (especially their view).
Lady K, in my experience liberals mostly reserve relativist arguments for questions of religion, morality, and ethics. In public policy debates they prefer to claim their prescriptions are backed by the facts, science, and the experts. They like to cite published papers and studies as supposed debate killers: global warming is a fact because the IPCC said so, Obamacare will reduce the deficit because the CBO said so, ARRA saved jobs because the CEA said so, etc. And they can always find a leftist academic to cite who will back up their version of "the facts."
That is an excellent clarification. I concede your point. But it does not refute the gist of Mr. Mulville's argument — that the time for being "respectful" is over. Even Rob "Squishy" Long recently conceded that things are going to get nasty — black eyes and bloody noses all around — because they have to get nasty if we hope to accomplish anything.
Edited on Jan 16, 2011 at 5:20pmJun '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Lady K, thanks! And for the record I completely agree with your characterization of moral relativism and solipsism as "utter horse pucky."
Jul '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
George Will has a brilliant column up at WaPo, which explains that the cancerous growth of government is the result of a feckless Congress surrendering its legislative role to regulators in the executive branch. Very few Americans comprehend that the most insidious threat to liberty comes from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011404663.html
Jul '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Peggy has a point. Conservatives cannot win over the significant additional portion of the American public we need in order to have a lasting majority without doing a far better job of explaining our principles.
An endless bar brawl with the Left is a losing proposition - they're much better at sucker-punching than we are. Of course we need to refute untruths and vile allegations, but we also need to make the right arguments until they sink in.
The best recent example of this is the argument over federal income taxes. The Right, in a unified, reasonable voice, convinced enough of the public that raising anyone's taxes in a recession was a terrible idea. The Left, of course, tried their same old tired tactic of demonizing Republicans as the toadies of the rich, but this time, with dignified insistence on sound economic principles, we won. We didn't try to defend ourselves against calumny; we relied upon reason.
Nov '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley and other "reasonable" people all endorsed Obama. In that, they showed poor judgement. Even worse, they betrayed their own instincts. Their mantra went something like this: "We know that Obama is a Marxist, but once he is elected, he will naturally tack to the center. He will never actually govern as a committed socialist with a destructive agenda, oh, my goodness, no."
Peggy Noonan has no credibility.
Aug '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Agreed. The people you cite (dare I call them a breed?) are a significant part of the problem.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 4:20amIf these people can be so easily suckered by platitudes, they can no longer be taken seriously. Is it that once one is in the pundit club they are tenured for life? Does being an Ivy League alum trump all? Some of these people need to be sent back down to the minor league while others more deserving (Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson) brought up to the majors to receive visibility beyond the right of center blogosphere.
And let's not forget the self-immolating David Frum. .
Aug '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Yes, the right arguments need to but made. Absolutely.
But to the Left this is take-no-prisoners bloodsport. To think anything less is somewhat suicidal. They have demonstrated time and time again that truth and reason are not their top priorities. Confronted by truth they just turn up the volume and intensity. Haven't you noticed? Reason is so passe, so pre-postmodern!
You might not like combat, but if your enemy forces it upon you, the only other option is surrender. It's the fighters on right that have made ALL the difference by lending clarity and drawing the stark contrasts . By this I mean the Limbaughs, Bachmanns, Palins, and DeMints - not the Hatches, McCains, Lindsey Grahams and squishy Noonans.
It is a brawl and we are all caught up in it - as distasteful as it may be.
Dec '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Peggy Noonan is our enabling Lucy, to our trusting Charlie Brown. We always end up on our backs.
We're up against nasty pieces of work such as Charles Schumer. I remember in @ July of 2008 when he just accidentally released his letter of concern to (I believe) Indy Mac bank, ultimately setting off a run on that bank and those that followed. Just an unfortunate coincidence, leading up to the election! Nonsense; nothing Schumer does isn't carefully calculated.
Now our trusting Charlie Brown, in the form of Sen. Coburn (!), will be sitting with Schumer, during the State of the Union.
Jan '11
Re: Not so, Peggy
With respect, I disagree. The Tea Party is a reasonable proposition, expressed passionately. The Left has always characterized the Tea Party as an angry mob, and now they're calling for us to quiet the mob. We question whether these calls for "calm" are because they're worried about the volume, or they're worried about the message.
The danger with passion is that it might cloud reason. But if you have a reasonable message, there's nothing wrong with passion.
Sep '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Kenneth; I am in agreement with both of your posts. A permanent majority should be the goal and consistently making the small government, pro-market argument is the only way to do this. I seem to recall that you were a consistent advocate of backing the GOP candidate that seemed to have the best chance of winning during the primaries. Some of these candidates were moderates if not liberals. Nominating them would have meant the arguments never got made; and in some cases the opposite arguments would have been advocated. This certainly is a race by race decision. I would place making the argument as paramount and therefore only rarely back a more moderate candidate. You seem to think winning the election is paramount. Are my recollections incorrect or is there an inconsistency in your positions?
Sep '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
What Peggy said is correct, but will never happen. Take HC. Fact: There are 30 M.( + or -) without health ins. The liberals make the argument that there are 30M. people without HEALTH CARE, anyone who cares about these people will want the government to do something. Therefore the government should do x,y,z. Since this argument labels anyone who does not favor government action as uncaring, it is neither factual nor respectful. It is also rarely refuted. Therefore the discussion devolves into what the government should do and the conservatives are placed in a defensive position.
Sep '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
I'm with Lady K, excellent post and points! I believe this was why the old guard Republicans like Bob Dole could compromise, because the government was smaller then. A little here a little there did not threaten our entire system. Now, however, we are at a tipping point and these dolts don't get it.
I also do not believe in lasting majorities. I would be happy to return to a time when Democrats found some valid issues to champion. As one with libertarian instincts, I dont trust either side forever. Not only do I want to make the GOP move rightward (for lack of a better shortcut term) I also want the Democrats to purge their left wing socialists. The debate above all else must be won. Politics will take care of itself.
Noonan, Brooks, Frum et al, don't understand the fundamental threat. That socialism is like a cancer that takes over everything once it reaches a certain point. And Noonan voting for Obama shows how worthless she really is. These people do real damage to the debate and provide cover for the very real enemies of limited government and everything the GOP (supposedly) stands for.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 9:26amAug '10
Re: Not so, Peggy
Wait, didn't Dole once say something like the reason he decided to be Republican is because you can't win on a Democrat ticket in Kansas? In which case, maybe Dole compromised just 'cuz.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 9:52am