In her latest column Peggy Noonan writes:
"This week Democratic members of Congress and other elected officials unveil their "New Direction for America," the party's declaration of its reason for being. It said it stands firmly and unequivocally, without fear or favor, unwaveringly and with grit for . . . reducing the cost of student loans. And making prescription drugs less expensive. And raising the minimum wage. Etc.
This is not a philosophy but a way--an inadequate way, but a way--of hiding the fact that you don't have a philosophy.
and:
"But small issues are small. And in this case don't even offer a philosophical pattern. "We stand for lower college loan costs and better prescription drug benefits." That's something you'd die on the battlefield for, isn't it?"
Later:
"Let me close with something that I thought had the sound of the future in it. I was at a Manhattan Institute lunch this week at which Rudy Giuliani spoke. He impressed the audience of 200 or so, which was not surprising as it was his kind of group, urban-oriented thinkers drawn not to ideology but to what works and will help in the world. (I am a longtime supporter.)"
So, The Democratic Party is a failure because they are approaching issues in a practical way instead of with some grand philosoply while Rudy Guliani is a success because he approaces issues in a practical way instead of with some grand philosophy.
Is she too dense to see that she has completely contradicted herself?
I know much modern political writing (especially conservative) is simply mindless criticism where you fill in the blanks using preprepared statements (Mad Magazine used to run articles just like that), but rarely have I seen a columnist dense enough to actually contradict themselves in a single article.