A Pilgrim’s Digression

Peggy Noonan must email her columns to the Journal, the way some people email their blog posts to their blog. Does anyone edit her work anymore? Her column this morning is a recap of 2005, ’05’s Big Five, and I found the following glaring typos in the article.

Writing of President’ Bush’s comeback: “But history moves quickly. His people hit reseat; he announced a refocus.” I think she means “reset,” as in the button on a Playstation that starts the game over. Gee, I didn’t realize Conservatives thought of the President as little more than a pre-programmed automaton, too.

Second error, writing of Iraq: “Are you a pessimist? Then you’re thinking Eccliastes: “Vanity, all is vanity.” An optimist? Think Lawrence of Arabia, at least in Robert Bolt’s screenplay: ‘Nothing is written.’” Eccliastes is obviously some classical Latin writer I’ve never heard of.

These “Biggest Stories of the Year” stories are staples of the week between Christmas and the New Year; it’s a little tiring, to me. I am so sick of recaps of the Tsunami and Katrina. That aside, Noonan does have some unique observations.

On Iraq, Noonan adds some interesting, fresh insight to the debate. I admit I am a pessimist on the subject, apparently an unwitting follower of the writer Eccliastes, so it was surprising to find a bit of pessimism in Noonan as well. She is typically ever the “Lawrence of Arabia” optimist.

Fourth story: Iraq, which continued. From foes of the invasion, increased animus; from supporters, a determination matched by a certain privately expressed deflation. It is due not to fears the U.S. will leave under political pressure (President Bush has made clear to his country and the world that we will stay) or that we will be defeated on the ground (these insurgents will not beat this U.S. military) but that victory will not in the end prove helpful or even definable. That it was not an investment of five years or even 20 but of a century. That is where the doubt is: After all this blood and treasure, will it turn out to have made things better?

Doubt? Conservatives are expressing doubt, even in private? Why, this is treason when Liberals express doubt.

Noonan goes on to compare Bush to Woodrow Wilson, hardly an unstinting bit of flattery. Noonan says that “[Bush's presidency] is like looking at Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and wondering How is this going to go?” We know how it went for Wilson. The question is, does bold interventionism always end in disgrace and disaster? Or can Bush succesfully swim against the tide of history? I’m betting on history.

I think Noonan correctly cites the top stories of 2005, probably in the correct order, though I still find it a little odd that the 2004 Tsunami gets lumped in with events of 2005. I suppose it happened too close to the New Year, or else it happened after reporters went home for the New Year holiday and so nobody wrote about it until they returned to work in 2005.

I always enjoy reading Noonan, though I think she is too prone to utillize the trite phrase, for example “blood and treasure.” But her writing is good, and her thinking usually pretty clear-headed. She does not seem too concerned about the Democratic chances for regaining Congress in 2006, comparing them to a “dead man walking,” or lying abed as it were, hoping for an infusion that will allow them to leap out of bed “and have adventures” (nice imagery). Like many Republicans, she’s being a bit too smug for her own good. Democrats still have a good shot at 2006, but unfortunately, their fortunes hinge on Republicans screwing up even more than they did in 2005. Democrats have no ideas nor any vision of their own to offer.

As Noonan correctly predicts, “All will hinge on Iraq.” If the protests of the Iraq election turn into a full-scale revolt against the Shi’ite Iraqi government, Republicans will be in a world of hurt come November 2006. Democrats won’t need any ideas or vision to take back Congress–again, unfortunately so. I keep hoping that Democrats will get their act together and use this time to refocus themselves and forge a new path to political revival. So far, they’ve just been retreading the same old circular rut they’ve been in for at least ten years.