Thank You, Peggy Noonan

 

I had just wandered through a generally so-so observation about patrician and plebeian elements in our present political situation. I was not sure that I had made my points clear enough for the normal pleb to grasp fully (we are generally too preoccupied with life’s minor distractions such as rent, food, and selecting the right brand of beer).

But one can always count on their betters to provide. So Peggy Noonan was kind enough to write a Wall Street Journal piece that explains it much better than I. She, of course, is an established member of the GOP Order of Patricians and her concern was about the unwashed plebs generally known as Trump voters. Hope among her fellow elitists was that more and more of this group would abandon the notion of the former president seeking the office again in 2024, that support for him would fade and he would pass from the public’s eye. As it is turning out, that simply isn’t happening. In fact, it appears to some that their numbers might even be growing.

This is so despite the continuous dumping on the former president. Or maybe even because of it. The latest anti-Trump production is turning into a huge disappointment. It actually seems to have the opposite effect intended. Interest in the show trial sometimes called the J6 hearings has been weak and far below what was hoped for. In fact, it is probably having the opposite effect. Only the most gullible or pre-disposed believe in them and for the rest they are far too transparent. For most, they leave the distinct impression of Star Chamber episodes intended not to learn anything but to influence an election by removing a leading candidate. Plebs must be protected from their limited intellects by narrowing their choices to only acceptable options.

In any case, Trump is actually increasing in support from this sideshow. So a fresh approach in pleb management has shown its face recently. That is to agree that the plebs do have some real concerns and that maybe the down and dirty Trump demeanor helped to create attention for them. But now he has served his purpose and it is time for candidates with smoother edges to carry the banner. For the moment, they are even willing to accept some candidates who might be a little “Trumpy” themselves as long as they are not the original. For the moment, that is.

But in the end, the real call will be for “reasonable” candidates who can hopefully worm their way into those “purple” vote without really confronting the matters that will change us as a nation and having to win a thoughtful and passionate argument for Liberty. You know, the kind of candidates who made Trump possible in 2016, the kind who knows in his (or hers, or …..) heart that something can be worked out to get us by if the patricians were left to bargain among themselves.

Noonan knows enough to begin every con job with a compliment, sort of. She is impressed that every Trump voter does love America even if it is “not always been a fully thought-through love but it’s generally fully felt”. She even concedes that this is “admirable”, even if the thought process was so incomplete. So plebeian. If it got any more simple-minded, it would be on my level.

A little deeper into the piece one is able to get a clearer picture of the patrician view of those millions upon millions of the GOP base who are so regularly called on by the party elites but rarely listened to. She tries to reinforce the Dem contention that Trump was told by all reasonable and sane people that the 2020 election was fair and square but he chose to listen instead to a collection of “kooks, crooks and freaks” which was not hard to find since “Trumpworld has more than most”.

Her appeal to wayward plebs is to drop Trump or lose the shining chance to dominate in the coming elections. Everything is so very bad that just about any Republican will surely win. Any except, of course, Trump. “Only Trump” would lose.

But the truth is as soon as Trump can be eliminated, the patricians will begin to try and thin out any of the other non-conformists with plebeian tendencies. Before the discussion is over they will hope to be back to the old standard GOP patrician because they could win “in the middle”. You know, that legendary middle where gun rights can be narrowed, where new entitlements have been created, where “comprehensive” immigration reform lives, where government dollars represent educational concern, where … Oh, hell my simple mind and stubby fingers are over-loaded … You can fill in the rest.

What is so desperately needed is a clear, objective American agenda for all, with disregard for who you are speaking to. The principles of the Founding and the principles which build successful lives will reach all levels of society.

The great swath of middle America that I have spoken of very much feels the loss of our Constitution even if the patricians don’t. The party elites have yet to realize that MAGA is not a Trump thing. It is a grassroots American plebeian thing. Trump simply put a slogan behind it and then did his best to implement it.

The Peggy Noonans still talk and act as if this was about a loose-mouthed billionaire and not the saving of the republic as founded. But they do sense the shift away from them and that is what they hate, what they fight against. If Trump is at the head of the column or not is hardly the central question. The real question is the uncompromising direction of the column.

We might be in a dangerous position with our future but more and more I believe that the people who will make the long-term difference have finally realized that the damage done to us by the “warriors” on their side, it is not near the problem as the damage done by the cowards and blinded on ours. Hopefully, Noonan will save her condescension for her own kind.

By the way, if any of you fellow plebs actually want to read the Noonan column you will find it behind a paywall. Unless you have the devious computer skills to bypass “the wall”, you will have to take my word for the content of the piece. Otherwise, you can join me in some simple plebeian pleasure as I take off these smelly socks, let the air hit these more than smelly feet, pour three, possibly four fingers in a cup, and soak up the quiet of an evening that has finally begun to cool.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 375 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I changed my registration from D to R in 2016 to vote against Trump in the Cali primary. And I’ve been given reason to regret that change in registration every. single. day. 

    I understand my immigrant parents now; though conservative in their values, they were determined Ds. Because the Ds might screw you, but they’ll do it to your face. Not behind your back. 

    I’ve found some interesting people on Twitter, people who are rejecting the Ds because of their destructive over reaction re Covid. I want to tell them; the Ds will piss you off, but the Rs will break your heart.

    And Peggy’s article (from what I’ve gleaned through this and another post) is a perfect example: there, there. I know better than you. Don’t you worry your pretty little head. We’ll talk about school choice for a generation, and do nothing. Because we know better. We’ll talk about defending your 2nd Amendment rights, but vote otherwise. Because we know better.

    Newsflash to Peggy: there are millions of people who love America. AND they know why.

    • #1
  2. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Ole Summers: The party elites have yet to realize that MAGA is not a Trump thing. It is a grass roots American plebeian thing.

    So was the Tea Party.

    • #2
  3. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    “Because the Ds might screw you, but they’ll do it to your face. Not behind your back.”

    @annefy, have you not heard of Ds such as Biden, Schumer, Schiff, Pelosi, etc., etc…

    • #3
  4. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    “Because the Ds might screw you, but they’ll do it to your face. Not behind your back.”

    @ annefy, have you not heard of Ds such as Biden, Schumer, Schiff, Pelosi, etc., etc…

    Last I looked, Biden got 81 million votes. And Pelosi could win her seat when campaigning as a Weekend at Bernies remake. So, I’m thinking they’re crooked. But the kinda crooked you can trust.

    • #4
  5. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hi Old Summers,

    Unfortunately, you have neglected to quote from Peggy Noonan’s article itself, but instead have inserted your own snarky interpretation of what she said.  Let’s look at the primary source, her actual article in the Wall Street Journal, shall we?

    The article is titled “Trump Voters Need a New Direction; He might have been the only Republican who could beat Hillary in 2016, but he’s a sure loser in 2024.”  But for the Code of Conduct, I would reprint in full.  But it is full of nuance and appreciation for Trump voters and her cold eyed view of the state of politics today.  She starts with this great paragraph,

    “I start with the obvious. I never meet Americans who love America more than Trump people do. They really love it—its history, what it means in the world, what it’s done. It has not always been a fully thought-through love but it’s generally fully felt, and at a time when not everybody bothers to feel such allegiance and gratitude it is admirable.”

    Boy, is that true.  Trump voters as a group love America deeply and passionately, and do not harp on all of its imaginary faults that the wokesters do.  Trump voters are the salt of the earth.  I admire and respect Trump voters, starting with my own sainted mother.

    Next Peggy notes Trump’s incredible insight about immigration.  She writes,

    “Six or seven years ago they had a piercing, bottom-line insight that smart people told them was crazy. It was that what was happening with America’s southern border couldn’t be solved by the two parties. They had 20 years; they failed. Democrats thought all the illegal immigrants would in time prove themselves Democrats. Republicans were terrified of being called racist and thought if they took moderate-seeming half-measures maybe they wouldn’t be seen as the enemy; maybe they’d get a piece of the Hispanic vote too. Nothing budged. Only some kind of human bulldozer could break through, some guy so intemperate and embarrassing in his language that he couldn’t backtrack, couldn’t change in office. There were other issues—maybe the businessman could do something about globalism, and China—but immigration was really it.”

    True again.  I have met many very hard working Hispanic people.  As a group, they are very hard working.  But dammit, I am so tired of hearing “Press One for English” and hearing people speak Spanish in the store.  I want to say, “Speak English!”  But I don’t.  I get it.  And Trump, for better or worse, is a “Human Bulldozer.”

    Peggy further praises the Trump’s four years in office.  She says:

    “Republicans can argue about Donald Trump’s single term. He was not strictly speaking a capable man, which surprised those who think the rich are. It’s not that he couldn’t make a deal; it’s that he never knew where the deal was, didn’t know who to go to because he didn’t understand Washington. The border is more overwhelmed than ever, the wall wasn’t built, China continues to loom. But there were no new wars, and conservative justices joined the high court.”

    I have praised Trump on these points: conservative judges were appointed, taxes were cut and regulations were slashed.  Trump overspent, but on the whole, he was a rather standard Republican in many ways.

    Then Peggy addresses the 2020 election.  She says:

    “Now we jump to this moment, to the Jan. 6 committee and the testimony—under oath—of Mr. Trump’s loyalists, who worked for him in the White House and led his 2020 re-election effort. What they said in essence—and again, under oath—is that the idea the election was stolen was all made up, pure fiction, a deliberate lie aimed at overturning the election.”

    It is important to note that virtually all of the witnesses at the January 6 Committee are Republicans and Conservatives.  These are not wild eyed liberals, they are on our side.  But while too many of them refused to acknowledge the truth about the “Big Lie” on the record, when put under oath, they told the truth.

    Noonan continues:

    “The president’s people had told him he hadn’t won. On election night, according to one witness, everyone said so but an ‘inebriated’ Rudy Giuliani. But a drunk Rudy wasn’t enough, so Mr. Trump looked around for kooks, crooks and freaks. He didn’t have to look far because America has lots of them, and Trumpworld more than most.

    “Their efforts were knocked down in the courts by Trump-appointed judges and rebuffed in the states by Republican officials. Mr. Trump tried to get his vice president to go along, but he refused. So he threw his most passionate supporters on the ground into it, and told them to march on the Capitol.  ‘Be there, will be wild!’”

    Noonan later continues:

    “The 1/6 hearings have been a powerful indictment, well-documented and undeniable. It is wishful thinking on the part of Trump supporters to dismiss the hearings on the grounds that most Americans didn’t watch them. Everything said will filter out and down, seep into the general knowledge base, and come to be understood as ‘what happened.’ It will further damage Mr. Trump’s standing.”

    Yep.  I have watched the January 6 Committee Hearings.  Many of fellow Ricochetti have not watched.  However, remember, that to win an election, a Republican must win 90% of all Republican votes.

    In Wisconsin, Trump lost by 20,000 votes.  But Republican Senator Ron Johnson pointed out that Republican candidates for the legislature had a total of twice that number of votes statewide.  Tens of thousands of Republican voters simply refused to vote for Trump; some voted for Biden, others voted third party, others left that race blank.

    In Georgia, Biden won by 12,000 votes.  But Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger notes that many times that number of voters voted for Republicans in legislative races, but not for Trump.

    Noonan continues:

    “In this atmosphere a normal upstanding Republican or a normal accomplished conservative would beat whatever the Democratic ticket is.

    “It is only Mr. Trump who would surely lose.

    “He lost in 2020 by seven million votes with a growing economy and no inflation—and that was before the events of 1/6.

    “America isn’t going to elect him again. They’re not going to let that guy back in that house. Because everyone knows it: Let Donald Trump back there and he’ll do a 1/6 again. Because while his followers love America, he doesn’t. He likes it as far as it goes, appreciates it as the stage for his greatness, but beyond that . . .”

    Noonan concludes:

    “So that’s what I tell Trump voters: Be serious. Move quickly. Let go of the anvil that, in the most buoyant waters imaginable, will sink you to the bottom of the sea.”

    I agree.  I will never vote for Donald Trump.  But, I will vote for any other Republican over any other Democrat for President.  I suspect that in addition to the NeverTrumpers who denied Trump re-election, there are numerous “Never Again Trumpers” or NAT’s who will never again vote for Trump.

    We should win in 2024, as Biden rivals Jimmy Carter for being ineffective.  I hope we win.  But we will only win if we cut our losses, give Trump a “gold watch” and urge him to spend more time with his wife, children and grandchildren.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Gary Robbins

    • #5
  6. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    Ole Summers: The party elites have yet to realize that MAGA is not a Trump thing. It is a grass roots American plebeian thing.

    So was the Tea Party.

    As some political commentators have said, the Tea Party was voters asking nicely. After being savaged, Trump was voters asking not as nicely. Who knows what the next time will be like. Ignore the Deplorables at your peril Republican Party. 

    • #6
  7. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Your thesis is that Trump is our best ticket to winning in 2024.  Andy McCarthy disagrees with you in National Review Plus at https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/liz-cheney-is-winning-the-january-6-committee/:

    Liz Cheney Is Winning the January 6 Committee: She has used her platform to make a powerful showing that Trump is unfit and Republicans would be on a suicide mission if they nominated him again.

    The bottom line for Andy McCarthy is this:

    “It is already manifest to those willing to open their eyes that Trump cannot win a national election. I believe Cheney is trying to ensure that he never has a chance to try. The point is to make Trump’s lack of viability so clear and undeniable that it ends his career as a candidate — to show the public, Republicans in particular, the parade of Trump horribles that Democrats could readily turn into ad after campaign ad. And even if he seeks the nomination anyway, as he seems poised to do, no party in its right mind would make him its standard-bearer.

    “There is also the obvious nexus between (a) the notion that Trump will be returning to the Oval Office in 2025 and (b) the grip he maintains on his supporters, which is what gives him such influence over the GOP. I suspect Cheney believes that if she can conclusively dispel the former, the latter will dissipate.

    “To be clear, I am not suggesting that Cheney’s motivations are partisan. Clearly, she is not beholden to a party that has forsaken her (and thus gone in a less conservative direction). Her conviction is that Trump’s re-accession to executive power would itself be an unprecedented constitutional crisis. I don’t want to take that on because there’s no point addressing something that’s not going to happen. It is enough to home in on the nomination question, since that’s the one we’ll have to deal with if Trump decides to run.”

    I saw a great political cartoon recently showing Ukrainians shooting down a plane with a stingers, blowing up a tank with a Javelin and dropping hand grenades on Russian soldiers with a drone.  In the fourth panel it shows Liz Cheney about to land on Trump.  Liz Cheney’s purpose in life appears to be to stand up when the rest of the Republican Party has run for cover to say what other elected Republicans will not say.  Liz Cheney is a profile in courage, just as Margaret Chase Smith was when she was the first Republican in the Senate to take down Joe McCarthy.

    The evidence is overwhelming and comes not from Democrats or Liberals; it comes from members of Trump’s own Administration, who when put under oath tell the truth and state what we all really know, that the election was not stolen, that Trump committed a grift of $250 million from his supporters which has gone not to “fight the steal” but to Trump’s own coffers where he pays family members to shill for him, and that Trump was deeply involved in the January 6th riots.  Sadly, the defendants who are being prosecuted have never been visited by Trump, nor has he contributed to their legal fees, nor did he pardon any of them for doing as he asked by coming to Washington and fighting like hell.  He has just left them out in the cold, and has moved on.

    • #7
  8. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    I’m intrigued by this line from Noonan: “It has not always been a fully thought-through love but it’s generally fully felt”. What on earth is a fully thought-through love? Is it a ‘nuanced’ patriotism that puts America first-ish, right behind international institutions, free trade, open borders and multiculturalism?

    • #8
  9. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    genferei (View Comment):
    It has not always been a fully thought-through love but it’s generally fully felt”. What on earth is a fully thought-through love?

    It’s a condescending and slightly judgmental way of saying “thoroughly misplaced love”.  Like loving your Edsel.

    Or Joe Biden sniffing your daughter’s hair.

    Or buying your wife a .22 rifle for your anniversary.

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hi Old Summers,

    Unfortunately, you have neglected to quote from Peggy Noonan’s article itself, but instead have inserted your own snarky interpretation of what she said. Let’s look at the primary source, her actual article in the Wall Street Journal, shall we?

    The article is titled “Trump Voters Need a New Direction; He might have been the only Republican who could beat Hillary in 2016, but he’s a sure loser in 2024.” But for the Code of Conduct, I would reprint in full. But it is full of nuance and appreciation for Trump voters and her cold eyed view of the state of politics today. She starts with this great paragraph

    There’s a degree of irony in the fact that the O/P shows more respect for Ms. Noonan and her work  in a critical review than does someone who purports to praise it.

    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing.  Since the author apparently can never get enough of his own views, he has chosen to double down on that post here in a comment.  It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second.  Sad.

    Congratulations to Mr. Summers for a well written critique of Ms. Noonan’s work that still preserves it’s copyrighted nature.

    • #10
  11. Terri Mauro Coolidge
    Terri Mauro
    @TerriMauro

    [Comment deleted by author]

    • #11
  12. Blondie Thatcher
    Blondie
    @Blondie

    Both pieces from you, Ole Summers, are great reads (per usual). I like the way Victor Davis Hanson refers to us plebs as the “muscular classes”.  When the crap gets deep, I have more faith in the muscular class to get through it than the Peggy Noonans. We just have to keep ignoring their “advice”.  I see Virginia seems to continue on the right path. 

    • #12
  13. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Image from hard copy, fully paid subscription.  “Used with permission from The Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com. Copyright 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.”

    (N.B., dug out of the trash.)

    • #13
  14. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hi Old Summers,

    Unfortunately, you have neglected to quote from Peggy Noonan’s article itself, but instead have inserted your own snarky interpretation of what she said. Let’s look at the primary source, her actual article in the Wall Street Journal, shall we?

    The article is titled “Trump Voters Need a New Direction; He might have been the only Republican who could beat Hillary in 2016, but he’s a sure loser in 2024.” But for the Code of Conduct, I would reprint in full. But it is full of nuance and appreciation for Trump voters and her cold eyed view of the state of politics today. She starts with this great paragraph

    There’s a degree of irony in the fact that the O/P shows more respect for Ms. Noonan and her work in a critical review than does someone who purports to praise it.

    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. Since the author apparently can never get enough of his own views, he has chosen to double down on that post here in a comment. It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Congratulations to Mr. Summers for a well written critique of Ms. Noonan’s work that still preserves it’s copyrighted nature.

    Hoyacon, with all due respect, it appears that you are playing the game of “gotcha.” which is common among us lawyers.  However, let’s look at the text of the Code of Conduct.  It prohibits the following:

    • Copyright violations or plagiarism, including, and especially, of images. Citations of others’ writing in a conversation-starter should be accompanied by the poster’s own original commentary, and quotations should clearly be marked as such.

    I quoted less than half of Ms. Noonan’s words, and italicized her words.  I provided my own original commentary.  I am well within the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.

    • #14
  15. She Member
    She
    @She

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Unfortunately, you have neglected to quote from Peggy Noonan’s article itself, but instead have inserted your own snarky interpretation of what she said.

    1. At the risk of becoming a crashing bore, I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times before: I believe the author of this comment lacks a basic understanding of how ‘conversation’ works.  Conversation is not furthered by a selecting one primary source after another that mirrors one’s own point-of-view, slavishly and extensively quoting it as prima facie evidence , and exclaiming, every so often, “I agree with every word she says!”  That’s not conversation.  That degree of dependence on appeals from authority, while it might work as a courtroom technique, is a conversation-killer, not a conversation starter in the world-at-large. Conversation actually is about the interpretation of what we’ve read and seen, and haven’t read and seen, in life, what we know, and what we think, where we agree and where we disagree.  It’s about ideas; about opening up debate, not about closing it off.  Oh, sure, we all think we’re absolutely correct about something, so we can’t understand how anyone could question us.  Ricochet’s a great place to deflate such hubris, and to let the air out of our tires, to make us question ourselves, and to engage us in–well–conversation.  That is, if we’re willing to stick our necks out and offer our own opinions about stuff, rather than simply pointing to external sources for validation, and saying, “I agree with every word of this! Case closed.”
    2. Conversation is not something we “submit” for review by others.  This is a court of peers, not a court of law.  The rules of evidence do not apply here, and no-one here is waiting impatiently for the final verdict which closes off all debate so we can move onto the next case. That makes conversation here sometimes quite messy.  As it should be.

    Let’s look at the primary source, her actual article in the Wall Street Journal, shall we?

    As was pointed out in the OP, the article is behind a paywall, so most of us can’t look at it directly.  However, it’s been extensively quoted here, and elsewhere by people who’ve read the whole thing, and there’s really no need to quote it (at length) again, the Code-of-Conduct here notwithstanding.  See below.

    genferei (View Comment):
    I’m intrigued by this line from Noonan: “It has not always been a fully thought-through love but it’s generally fully felt”. What on earth is a fully thought-through love? Is it a ‘nuanced’ patriotism that puts America first-ish, right behind international institutions, free trade, open borders and multiculturalism?

    It’s the sort of feel-good bafflegab in which Noonan, late in life, has come to specialize.  Something about which her acolytes can say things like, “Look!  Look! She’s praising her adversaries, and calling them “sincere” and “patriots. She’s a uniter, not a divider!  Brilliant!”

    That’s the lipstick.

    The pig, of course, is the first part of Noonan’s couplet, in which she–quite forcefully–implies that those “Trump people”** (TBC, that’s a direct quote) who love America do so in ways that are not “fully thought through.” That’s what she means, later in the article, by the “Trumpian view,” which includes things like the “joy of social resentment” and “jacked-up nihilism.”

    **Tut-tut, Peggy.  Bad form to put the adjective first these days.  Dehumanizing.  Like calling people who happen to be blind, “blind people,” or people who are hearing-impaired, “deaf people.”   You shouldn’t do that.  Because we’re all “people” first, don’cha know? 😉

    • #15
  16. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    A few quick hits…

    1. Thanks, @olesummers for an interesting and engaging OP. It reflects my own responses to Peggy Noonan’s latest WSJ column, and I recommend it strongly for promotion to the Main Feed.

    2. Having read @garyrobbins post praising Noonan’s essay, and the extensive excerpts included there and here, I have to say that as yet, he fails to convince. Noonan’s has lost much of her audience; readers like me once relied upon her to provide a point of view we didn’t otherwise have easily. No more.

    3. Adding National Review’s Andy McCarthy’s opinion that “Liz Cheney is Winning” doesn’t help Gary’s case. I don’t trust McCarthy’s analysis anymore, and haven’t for several years. He has yet to acknowledge that the Justice Department and FBI are throughly corrupt and partisan, facts that are undeniable in light of events since 2009 to present. Perhaps McCarthy praises Cheney and writes hopefully that she is “winning,” trying to convince himself and others who already agree with him. But he does not have the credibility to convince me.

     

    • #16
  17. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hi Old Summers,

    Unfortunately, you have neglected to quote from Peggy Noonan’s article itself, but instead have inserted your own snarky interpretation of what she said. Let’s look at the primary source, her actual article in the Wall Street Journal, shall we?

    The article is titled “Trump Voters Need a New Direction; He might have been the only Republican who could beat Hillary in 2016, but he’s a sure loser in 2024.” But for the Code of Conduct, I would reprint in full. But it is full of nuance and appreciation for Trump voters and her cold eyed view of the state of politics today. She starts with this great paragraph

    There’s a degree of irony in the fact that the O/P shows more respect for Ms. Noonan and her work in a critical review than does someone who purports to praise it.

    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. Since the author apparently can never get enough of his own views, he has chosen to double down on that post here in a comment. It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Congratulations to Mr. Summers for a well written critique of Ms. Noonan’s work that still preserves it’s copyrighted nature.

    Hoyacon, with all due respect, it appears that you are playing the game of “gotcha.” which is common among us lawyers. However, let’s look at the text of the Code of Conduct. It prohibits the following:

    • Copyright violations or plagiarism, including, and especially, of images. Citations of others’ writing in a conversation-starter should be accompanied by the poster’s own original commentary, and quotations should clearly be marked as such.

    I quoted less than half of Ms. Noonan’s words, and italicized her words. I provided my own original commentary. I am well within the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.

    The issue goes well beyond the Code of Conduct, which is why I never mentioned it.  It’s a matter of copyright, and the language in the Code of Conduct is not, and I doubt was intended to be, an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for substantially “borrowing” from copyrighted work.  The doctrine of fair use has a number of elements, which makes a conclusion difficult to reach, but you are pushing the envelope and have done so twice.  Crediting Noonan is a part of the picture, but her work is paywalled for a reason.

    • #17
  18. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Peggy reminds me of my middle school English teacher who, when faced with misbehavior, would opine “What ails you?”

    • #18
  19. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Ole Summers: By the way, if any of you fellow plebs actually want to read the Noonan column you will find it behind a paywall.

    The paywall for the Wall Street Journal. How many Trump supporters read the WSJ? Not too many. How many squishy elite globalists who would vote for Jon Huntsman, Michael Bloomberg, or Mitt Romney and remain perfectly content? Tons. Hence Peggy Noonan.

    Ms. Noonan has made predictions before.

    She asserted that Obama would lose in 2012. 

    But only after she basically endorsed him in 2008. 

    (As a preface, I’m including Krauthammer, Brooks and Will )

    Why It’s Important: The three great Republican conservative media apologists have all flirted with Obama. According to my reader, Krauthammer’s decided to clarify his earlier praise of Obama and officially endorse McCain. David Brooks wrote a piece in the New York Times that stopped just short of endorsement. George Will was one of the first to encourage Obama to run and hasn’t made an official endorsement. Unlike the usual political season where it’s all partisan all the time, these three have all had more than the usual kind words for Obama.

    6. Peggy Noonan.

    What She Said: “He [Obama] has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief…. There is something else. On Feb. 5, Super Tuesday, Mr. Obama won the Alabama primary with 56% to Hillary Clinton’s 42%. Birmingham, 1963, and the water hoses used against the civil rights demonstrators. And now look, the black man thanking Alabama for his victory.
    This means nothing? This means a great deal.”

    Do I see a pattern here that predates Mr. Trump? 

    Even when the Republican opponent was McCain, these four have a crush on Obama. 

    It’s all style with these people. The Presidency is a boutique puppet show for these people, and they are the casting directors who choose the likable dynamic candidate they can relate to and be entertained by in their soaring rhetoric their finely creased trousers and their pseudo-academic language and credentials.  

    Then Peg sours on Obama, having completely missed his core beliefs and goals obvious to anyone who follows politics, even as an amateur.

    Then she’s claiming in 2012, that Obama can’t win versus Saint Romney. 

    In 2016, Noonan was all-in on the TDS, claiming among other things that Trump should not have his fingers on the laces of the nuclear football. We seemed to have dodged that occurrence in those four years, but I haven’t heard a peep from Peggy reading Biden’s competence as the Commander of our nuclear arsenal, even as the nuclear war rhetoric has been invoked over this Ukraine business. 

    Peggy is not worth a penny.

     

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    America needs an opposition political party to the Democrat Party.

    • #20
  21. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    I’ve read the whole of Noonan’s article, now. It’s actually really bad. She’s had more than six years to examine and think upon the Trump phenomenon and she has understood nothing.

    I’m actually embarrassed at the years of my life I spent thinking that reading and listening to pundits increased my knowledge and provided insight, as if outsourcing my thinking was a royal road to wisdom.

    It’s obvious, really. Pundits are people, and by-and-large self-regarding and unreflective people with a job that imposes no penalty for error.

    There are better and less self-deceptive ways of amusing oneself than pondering the punditry. I intend to indulge in those. 

    • #21
  22. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Every publisher has their own permissions policy. This is the Wall Street Journal‘s:

    You may download, reformat and print a limited amount of WSJ.com content for your personal, non-commercial use. You may also include excerpts or limited portions of WSJ.com information in printed memos, reports and presentations. We only ask that you attribute this information to us by including “Used with permission from The Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com. Copyright 200__ Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.”

    Any other reproduction of WSJ.com content requires permission from us, and some forms of reproduction will require you to pay a licensing fee. Please note: If the contents you request are the property of a third-party, we may not be able to grant permission.

    • For information regarding hard copy reprints in bulk: Call Journal Reprints at 1-800-843-0008.

    • To post articles on a Web site or distribute articles via e-mail: Visit Dow Jones WebReprintsm Service at http://www.djreprints.com or call 609-520-7214.

    • In all cases, if permission is granted, stories must be reproduced in their entirety, unedited, and accompanied by the above-listed copyright statement and credit. Our Reference Services group will provide you with more specifics or you can receive information automatically by fax (1-800-888-9530).

    A member’s reproducing content on Ricochet would be considered “noncommercial use,” I would think. However, once that content goes to the Main Feed, it could be seen as being used to generate income for the Ricochet owners.

    The WSJ’s policy is interesting because traditionally, whenever readers see “Used with permission,” they are usually to assume that a formal permissions contract exists, but it appears the WSJ is breaking with that convention and allowing people say “Used with permission” without the formal contract. But that’s their call.

    The problem with op-ed pieces is the fair use constraint that prohibits the reproduction of the essence of protected copy. In a 300-page critical analysis of Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, staying within the 250- to 500-word length for attributed quotes is easy to do and perfectly acceptable. But in a 1,000-word op-ed piece, those 250- to 500-word length constraints are trickier.

    I would advise members to be careful quoting an editorial or op-ed piece and if in doubt, to keep a long quote on the Member Feed. As long as it remains there, most likely a judge would consider it fair, non-income-generating use.

    • #22
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    genferei (View Comment):

    I’ve read the whole of Noonan’s article, now. It’s actually really bad. She’s had more than six years to examine and think upon the Trump phenomenon and she has understood nothing.

    I’m actually embarrassed at the years of my life I spent thinking that reading and listening to pundits increased my knowledge and provided insight, as if outsourcing my thinking was a royal road to wisdom.

    It’s obvious, really. Pundits are people, and by-and-large self-regarding and unreflective people with a job that imposes no penalty for error.

    There are better and less self-deceptive ways of amusing oneself than pondering the punditry. I intend to indulge in those.

    Same here. This is why I sometimes refer to the Trump era as the great reveal, in that I actually learned the truth regarding those pundits, politicians, and their policy analyses in which I had failed to discern who were the ultimate true beneficiaries.

    • #23
  24. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    I like Peggy Noonan.  She has a great way with words,   and sometimes has great ideas and other times truly awful ideas.  I enjoy her prose,  much like I enjoy Kevin Williamson and Jonah Goldburg.   Kevin and Jonah are behind pay walls that I am unwilling to pay to breach.

    I trust my own judgement to consider their ideas, and reject the bad ones and use the good ones.   I neither need to accept all their ideas as brilliant or reject all their ideas as evil,  idiocy or treason.

    Trump was a great president.    However, he  mishandled the messaging of Covid,  trusted ( or at least didn’t fire ) healthcare advisors who successfully undermined him,   and bungled his re-election.    I truly believe there was a tremendous amount of fraud and corruption in the election,   but I also know he inspired enough hate that he may have lost the election even without the fraud.  I voted for him.

    I think he should pass on 2024,  and if he does run I think the Republicans should pass on him.    I am not convinced that he can win the general in 2024,  and if he does win, he is still too old and too focused on revenge for 2020.   There are a handful of young Republican contenders that would be better candidates than 2024 Trump and better presidents than 2024-2028 Trump.

     

    • #24
  25. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Do not feed Team Troll.

    • #25
  26. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing.  … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second.  Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    • #26
  27. Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler Member
    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler
    @Muleskinner

    Ole Summers: You know, that legendary middle where gun rights can be narrowed, where new entitlements have been created, where “comprehensive” irrigation reform lives, where government dollars represent educational concern, where….

    Lest anyone think that “irrigation” control should be “immigration” control, (and maybe it does) consider the Waters of the United States, regulations. 

    The new rule greatly expands the federal government’s regulatory reach over private land use because it allows it to regulate ditches, ephemeral drainages and low spots on farmlands and pastures. This could impact everyday activities such as plowing, planting and fence-building in or near these areas.

    This rulemaking brings us further away from the clarity and predictability achieved by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This is important for farmers and ranchers because the penalties for non-compliance are significant. A simple misjudgment by a farmer in determining whether a low spot is or isn’t subject to the regulation can trigger substantial civil fines as well as criminal penalties.

    It still goes to the larger point that there aren’t any areas of life that the Grand “Order of Patricians” isn’t willing to regulate just a little less stringently than Democrats. For our own good, of course.

    • #27
  28. Ole Summers Member
    Ole Summers
    @OleSummers

    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler (View Comment):

    Ole Summers: You know, that legendary middle where gun rights can be narrowed, where new entitlements have been created, where “comprehensive” irrigation reform lives, where government dollars represent educational concern, where….

    Lest anyone think that “irrigation” control should be “immigration” control, (and maybe it does) consider the Waters of the United States, regulations.

    The new rule greatly expands the federal government’s regulatory reach over private land use because it allows it to regulate ditches, ephemeral drainages and low spots on farmlands and pastures. This could impact everyday activities such as plowing, planting and fence-building in or near these areas.

    This rulemaking brings us further away from the clarity and predictability achieved by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This is important for farmers and ranchers because the penalties for non-compliance are significant. A simple misjudgment by a farmer in determining whether a low spot is or isn’t subject to the regulation can trigger substantial civil fines as well as criminal penalties.

    It still goes to the larger point that there aren’t any areas of life that the Grand “Order of Patricians” isn’t willing to regulate just a little less stringently than Democrats. For our own good, of course.

    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler (View Comment):

    Ole Summers: You know, that legendary middle where gun rights can be narrowed, where new entitlements have been created, where “comprehensive” irrigation reform lives, where government dollars represent educational concern, where….

    Lest anyone think that “irrigation” control should be “immigration” control, (and maybe it does) consider the Waters of the United States, regulations.

    The new rule greatly expands the federal government’s regulatory reach over private land use because it allows it to regulate ditches, ephemeral drainages and low spots on farmlands and pastures. This could impact everyday activities such as plowing, planting and fence-building in or near these areas.

    This rulemaking brings us further away from the clarity and predictability achieved by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This is important for farmers and ranchers because the penalties for non-compliance are significant. A simple misjudgment by a farmer in determining whether a low spot is or isn’t subject to the regulation can trigger substantial civil fines as well as criminal penalties.

    It still goes to the larger point that there aren’t any areas of life that the Grand “Order of Patricians” isn’t willing to regulate just a little less stringently than Democrats. For our own good, of course.

    I am glad you added that as I had just gone back and changed to immigration – but this is a great point that I am keenly aware of – and as you correctly note , another example of the long arm extending into all areas of life!

    • #28
  29. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Image from hard copy, fully paid subscription. “Used with permission from The Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com. Copyright 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.”

    (N.B., dug out of the trash.)

    How did you do that??? My cursor was able to select the text from that.

    • #29
  30. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    This:

    But the truth is as soon as Trump can be eliminated, the patricians will began to try and thin out any of the other non-conformists with plebeian tendencies.

    and this:

    The party elites have yet to realize that MAGA is not a Trump thing. It is a grass roots American plebeian thing. Trump simply put a slogan behind it and then did his best to implement it.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.