Is George Bush normal? Peggy Noonan thinks so. In fact she thinks that his "normalcy" is what attracts so many people to him. The irony runs swift and deep in her latest attempt at hero-worship.
There are others who may be far better at this than myself, but today I decided to take a stab at Peggy Noonan. Her latest offering in the Wall Street Journal is titled
"Broken Glass Democrats Can their anger overcome Bush's normality?" It brings hagiography to a whole new level. This is a brief exerpt from a a commentary I've posted elsewhere (link below):
Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. ...You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?"
He'll run out and help, but only after he first disappears for a few hours to an undisclosed safe location, returning after the flames have been extinguished to shake his head at the sight of the damage, "tsk tsking" for all to hear. He'll then, after much prompting, agree that an inquiry into what caused the fire would be a good idea, but look at his watch and say, "I'd like to stick around and help with the investigation, but I've got a lot of stuff to do tonight...good luck, though!", before running off to the country club for cocktails.
He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.
I don't even know where to begin with this drivel. "Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world?" What the hell does that even mean? Fight the fire, yes. But after it's out, it's somehow wrong to ask, why did the fire start in the first place? How were the escapes maintained? Could we have done something to prevent it? What can we do in the future so that something like this won't happen? I agree that Bush isn't interested in the answers to these types of questions, but an attitude like his is one sure way to ensure that there'll be plenty of fires to fight in the future.
But of course, what Noonan is really saying is that, when faced with a crisis or threat, there'll be those who prefer to study the situation, to gather more facts and analyze them before deciding on a course of action. And there are those, like Bush, who act first. But let's imagine that instead of a fire, there was the sense that a burglary or house invasion was occurring at little Sally's house. Should good neighbor Bush wait to find out what the facts are, or instead burst in, guns blazing, shooting at anything that might be a threat? If it turned out that what sounded like a violent struggle was merely the sound of a loud TV, it'll be no consolation to Sally that heroic neighbor Bush has gunned down her parents by mistake. There are times when action is called for and there are times when a "normal" person will think before acting. To put it in terms even Noon would understand, "Look before you leap" is not a recipe for intellectual paralysis.
So as far as Noonan's statement that "Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy; Americans love the guy who ain't that guy" goes, I think that everyone would like the guy who "ain't that guy". But it's a false choice that Noonan provides.
More
here.