Personally, I'm voting Libertarian. But I was feeling particularly mischievous this morning and thought I'd toss this little firecracker in...

(from today's Wall Street Journal)

Bush, a Modest Man of Faith

The president has to be trustworthy.

BY PEGGY NOONAN

Thursday, November 2, 2000 12:01 a.m. EST

Readers of this page are familiar with the policy questions at issue in the election. As president, George W. Bush's natural inclination and stated intention is and will be to lower taxes, not raise them, to clear away regulation rather than create it, and to reform Social Security in a way that makes it more lucrative for recipients, more secure as an entitlement, and more respectful toward those workers who will be allowed to redirect a portion of their contributions into markets. He will allow Americans once again to look for and develop energy resources, while opposing irresponsible treatment of precious unspoiled lands.

In taking these actions Mr. Bush will strengthen the foundations of today's prosperity so the long boom continues. Federal decisions of course can weaken prosperity. Al Gore's proposals--new entitlements, new spending, a balanced budget and no tax increase--seem so contradictory as to be schizophrenic, and more likely to turn a downturn into a deep recession.

In the area of public education Mr. Bush, unlike Mr. Gore, is sympathetic to the effort to extend choice to those at the middle and bottom of the economic ladder through charter schools and voucher scholarships. This--the school liberation movement--is the most promising development in American public education because, by its nature, it elevates the needs of children over the demands of unions.

In foreign affairs Mr. Bush's intentions are marked by moral modesty and a lack of illusions: America, he repeated in the last debate, must fully engage the world, but with humility. His first and most crucial foreign-affairs endeavor will begin, appropriately, at home: improving the national defense, remedying the effects of eight years of confusion and neglect, enhancing responsiveness to future challenges, increasing morale, restoring those aspects of the old military culture that are positive and needed.

In all this he will differ from Mr. Gore, who, if he took such actions would rouse the anger of his base, parts of which are animated by a reflexive animus to, or indifference toward, American military might. Having been forced to fight to keep his base during the election, he will not soon defy it in the White House.

In character, personality traits, history and attitudes, Mr. Bush seems the opposite of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and of Mr. Gore. Mr. Bush has an instinctive personal modesty, an easygoing sense of both human and governmental limits. He will know how to step aside and let the country take center stage; he will know how to show respect for others; he will not bray endlessly about his own excellence, will not compare himself to Nelson Mandela, Mark McGuire, or the heroes of the novels "Love Story" or "Darkness at Noon"; he will not discuss his underpants. Laura Bush will not announce that her husband's power is hers, that she is co-president, and that she will soon nationalize 17% of the gross national product. Both Bushes seem not emotionally troubled but mentally balanced, which was once considered the lowest of expectations for our leaders but now seems like a gift to the nation.

All of this will be a relief. What's more, it suggests a restoration of civility and grace to the White House, and to political discourse. This will have happy implications for our democracy, and for the children who see it unfold each day.

A Bush presidency would mark a cultural-political paradox: a triumph of class that is a setback for snobbery. Class--consideration, a lack of bullying ego, respect for others--has been not much present the past eight years. The Clintons and Mr. Gore have acted and spoken in ways that suggest they believe they are more intelligent and capable than others--superior, in short. They have behaved as if they believe they are entitled to assist others by limiting their autonomy; thus the tax policies in which they take our surplus and spend it for us, the social programs in which they limit what you might fritter away in your sweet but incompetent way.

The Clintons and Mr. Gore, intelligent and ambitious, came of age at the moment in our history when America As Meritocracy took off like a rocket; and they had merit. They were educated at fine universities at the moment those universities became factories for manufacturing the kind of people who prefer mankind to men and government to the individual. To absorb those views was to help ensure one's rise. They rose. In time they won power in the system they helped invent--command-and-control liberalism. In rising and running things they became what they are: vain and ruthless as only those who have not suffered could be. Not realizing they were lucky they came to think they were deserving; they were sure they had the right to show the inferiorBthat would be you and me--how to arrange their lives.

Mr. Bush came from the same generation, lived in the same time, but became a very different sort of man. He wasn't impressed by Yale; when he saw the elites up close he didn't like what he saw. He was of Midland, Texas.

He became a businessman, floundered, knew success, experienced disappointment, became a deep believer in God. His religious commitment has meant for him the difference between a clear mind and a double mind. It has helped him become a man who is attached to truth on a continuing basis, and not just an expedient one. It means he sees each person as a unique individual worthy of dignity, freedom and responsibility.

Mr. Bush has the awkwardness of the convicted, meaning roughly, "I'm a mess, or at least have been; I'm not a hypocrite but I've been that too. I am utterly flawed and completely dependent; and I'm doing my best." He knows he is better than no one. The man with the swagger and the smirk is humble.

Mr. Bush has a natural sympathy for, and is the standard bearer of, the modest, the patronized, the disrespected. The lumberman of Washington state who wants to earn his living responsibly and with respect; the candy store owner of New Jersey who's had it up to here with regulation and taxes; the Second Amendment-loving Louisiana housewife who keeps a gun high up in the closet; the Ohio nurse who worries about abortion and who knows that "You oppose abortion? Then don't have one!" is as empty and unsatisfying as "You don't like slavery? Then don't own one!"; the courthouse clerk in Tennessee who says he'll go to jail before he'll take the Ten Commandments off the wall; and the tired old teacher who carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket and knows that while it is a living document it is not the plaything of ideologues. All of these--the shouted down and silenced in what the Clintons and Mr. Gore call the national conversation--are for Mr. Bush, and he for them.

That is a great irony of the 2000 election: The man who speaks for the nobodies is the president's son, Mr. Andover Head Cheerleader of 1965. But history is replete with such ironies; they have kept the national life interesting.

If Mr. Bush is wise he will continue as president to stand with them, and speak for them, so that in time their numbers increase, and a big but beset minority will grow and become again what it once was: a governing coalition. This election could in this sense be a realigning one.

There is the question of intelligence: Is Al Gore bright enough to be president? Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are intelligent men, but they have very different kinds of minds. George Bush respects permanent truths and is not in the thrall of prevalent attitudes. He thinks the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest speech ever given. This would strike some as an obvious thing to say, but it takes courage now to say the obvious thing, because to say the obvious is to declare that you see it, and to declare that you see it is to announce yourself . . . a bit of dunce. If you had a first rate mind you'd see what isn't obvious, such as . . . the illustrative power of metaphor to speak to the existential challenge to postmodern man, which is to flourish within a democratic framework and negotiate its inevitable power centers while balancing the need for communal unity on the one hand with the necessity to find and unlock individual potential on the other.

I don't think that sentence made sense, but you could speak it in a lot of places--a faculty dinner, the vice president's house--and elicit nods of approval. And not in spite of the fact that it is nonsense but because of it.

The intellectually ambitious of the Clinton-Gore class seem willing to follow any small crumbs in their search for truths, perhaps because they can't see so many of the older and enduring ones. Mr. Gore with his metaphor grids and his arrows and circles shows us not a creative mind at work but a lost mind in search of shelter. Henry Hyde once said of Newt Gingrich: "He's always discovering new things to believe in." He meant: a real grown-up doesn't carry on like this, inventing new philosophies, drawing arrows and sparks; a real grown-up learns what from the past is true, and brings it into the present.

Mr. Bush speaks of God and George Washington and Reagan, and the elites find it unsophisticated. But for many citizens it will be good to see in leadership one of such simplicity, grounded in such realities, respecting of such wisdom.

Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past eight years in another way. He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong.

This is important at any time, but is crucial now. The next president may well be forced to shepherd us through the first nuclear event since World War II, the first terrorist attack or missile attack. "Man has never had a weapon he didn't use," Ronald Reagan said in conversation, and we have been most fortunate man has not used these weapons to kill in the past 50 years. But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan.

When it comes, if it comes, the credibility--the trustworthiness--of the American president will be key to our national survival. We may not be able to sustain a president who is known for his tendency to tell untruths.

If we must go through a terrible time, a modest man of good faith is the one we'll need in charge. That is George Walker Bush, governor of Texas.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" (Regan Books, 2000). Her column appears Fridays.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000

Answers

A bump to New Answers, only because it seems very few read the chronological list.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

Eve, I don't mean to flame you, and I know Bush seems like an answer to prayer compared to Gore, but this is just more subtle brainwashing.

I'm going to be ALLOWED to keep more money?

The Constitution is a "living document?"- This is the big lie perpetrated by socialists, one Barbara Jordan in particular quoted IN STONE on the pillar in front of the IRS building in Md.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 02, 2000.

This question is asked with the best of intent; no sarcasm, not looking to push any buttons:

If the Constitution is not indeed a living document, then why is it, with only the greatest of efforts, amendable? Do you KOFE, view it as somehow static, immutable? This would be against the intent of the writer's of said document, no?

Perhaps I am ignorant of the term living document. Thanks.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 02, 2000.

Eve, you must have posted this for more reason than mere mischeivousness. If you are inclined to believe it, then I urge you to vote for Bush. Work for Libertarian values in the future but vote for Bush now (for the same reasons that Celia will vote for Gore before Nader). My impression is that you are from Michigan, a swing state. Please make your vote count.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 02, 2000.

KoFE, in the context, with the implication that this would be Bush's position, Noonan said, "...while it is a living document it is not the plaything of idealogues."

As Rich indicates, I think it would be best to first define what we mean by "living document." Then I'll be happy to "chew" the subject with ya. And -- flame? Naw -- no way!

Rich/Bingo -- Good points. In fact, I just got through with a thread where someone chose to leave the debate rather than define what we were talking about! I don't think I could handle two of those in one week.

Lars, I hear ya. You know, actually I agonize over this very thing. I'm trying to vote for my principles, yet I see Gore as someone I could never trust -- someone that I would never want at the helm. I really intend to vote Libertarian, but if this conflict continues to tear at me...well...ya never know.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

My impression is that you are from Michigan, a swing state. Please make your vote count.

That's really unbecoming of you, Lars. Insult the lady and in the same breath plead for her to vote for YOUR candidate. That's pretty sad.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 02, 2000.

Eve and I posted at the same time. Obviously it was I who was insulted by your remarks, Lars. Shame on me for speaking for Eve.

Nonetheless, those who insist a vote for anyone not affiliated with the Democrat/Republican stranglehold is a wasted vote is blind to the most basic reasoning for voting in an election: identify the candidate who most closely reflects your vision for your town/county/state/region/country/world/universe and cast a vote for that person. Period.

IMO, of course.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 02, 2000.

Bongo:

Your sentence for today's Crime of the Patriarchy will be 40 lashes with a wet noodle.

-- flora (***@__._), November 02, 2000.

40 lashes would be a pleasure. Now sentencing me to a night on the town with Loowla...

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 02, 2000.

Bingo, in principle I want SO much to agree with you 100%. I mean, you just don't KNOW how much. I mean, like so much I can TASTE it.

So just as a stretcher for ya, what would you do if you practically KNEW that someone -- shall we say, who's somewhat more Hitleresque than Gore -- well -- say, Hitler himself, for example -- would get in if you voted your principles?

Actually, something like this very thing DID happen in Germany -- and Hitler got in only by a plurality -- not a majority.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

I'm not one for declaring absolutes, Eve. If I came across otherwise it was purely misstatement on my part.

If our country degrades to the point a Hitleresque individual draws within a whisper of gaining significant federal power I would hope I'd take whatever action necessary to prevent this from becoming reality, IF it were within the bounds of my higher principles.

I would not do so on a local or state level, I don't believe. It is a simple matter to move residence to another city or state.

There's a larger karmic issue here which I don't see as particularly interesting to the majority, so I'll refrain from addressing it.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 02, 2000.

Bingo, to alter and refine my analogy somwhat, let's say that Hitler was in a dead heat with Bush and you knew your candidate's chances was solidly in the "Yeah, Right -- When Pigs Fly" conclusion from CNN's latest poll results.

And say Hitler was coming across as full of promises ("Ven elekted I promise dot I vill lower taxes and also vill giff everyvun a tousand mark -- I mean dollar -- holiday bonus at da end of every year from da budget surplus. Or maybe even a percentage. Ya. Dot's right. Dot's da ticket.") -- he just might pull it off.

What say thee now?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

Flora, LOL. If anyone can speak for herself, it's Eve. Eve, I'm glad you weren't offended by my comments.

I take the same approach as Celia, whereas you and Unc take the same approach as Brian.

I can see someone who lives in TX voting for either Browne or Nader but in some other states, I think that is an extravagant thing to do. I also realize that the Greens are looking for that 5% and so their total vote has a meaning beyond a statement of principle.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 02, 2000.

Well, I'm a believer in the free market, I think government distorts that market so government activity should be kept to a necessary minimum. I think it's important to recognize that the invisible hand that does so much good indirectly for all of us, is *composed* of all of us, rather than of "leaders" taking it upon themselves to tell us what we should want and then taxing us to give it to us (or at least give us what's left over after high administrative costs).

So I can read Noonan's words and feel moderately soothed until I slam headlong into darkest and dankest religion. Noonan seems to equate economic good sense with faith in her own personal God, and seems to feel that same God must be guiding Bush's economic philosophy as well. Amazing! Conservative economic principles are based on mountains of evidence, observation, mathematics, experimentation, and learning from our mistakes. They are NOT based on religious superstitions and fairy tales.

Noonan, blinded by her indoctrination, cannot even see the inherent contradiction between a general conservative philosophy of leaving people alone to make their own decisions and mistakes, and the religious urge to *force* people to follow the arbitrary dictates of some church. It makes practical, political sense for politicians to pander to superstitions held widely enough to constitute an important voting bloc. It even makes a kind of coalition-forming sense to speak of the freedom to follow your own stars out of one side of your mouth, and the "freedom" to do what the church insists out of the other.

But Noonan's claim that these opposing and mutually exclusive positions arise from the same source is simple nonsense. The thought that Bush might see government as a vehicle to impose the policies of his religion on everyone else is the primary cause of people being frightened away from intelligent conservative positions.

Then again, maybe Noonan recognizes this, and is blending into her little campaign speech some appeals to both the sensible and the superstitious. But on rereading, I can't help but conclude that Noonan is an unknowning victim, not a knowing manipulator.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.

I'm sorry, Bingo, we posted at the same time, so please ignore my last post.

I might comment on your last post, though, after I think about it.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

So I can read Noonan's words and feel moderately soothed until I slam headlong into darkest and dankest religion.

Good grief Flint, whatever caused you such hyperventilation? Her remark about the Sermon on the Mount? I see no religiosity in Noonan's essay.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 02, 2000.

flora,

Hey -- I like that. "Crime of the Patriarchy." I wonder if something like that would fit in with my Libertarian perspective. No matter; I'll force it. But with low taxes, who'd pay for all the noodles? I mean I think all those used, wet ones wouldn't hold up very long. ("And I'll lower your taxes ACROSS THE BOARD -- no exceptions -- um...well...except of course for the noodles. You understand.")

Lars, you've never come close to offending me.

Flint,

I agree with your positions -- but, that's because (IMO) you're coming from a more libertarian perspective. To me, Noonan's just another classic conservative -- where religion plays a significant role. You know -- relative freedom in the economic sphere, but controls over our personal lives based on legislated religious morality.

Rich/Bingo,

Your brief philosophical elaboration is provocative. Hey, kewl -- a slow, philosophical striptease! But I really hope you get the chance to share these ideas in more detail sometime.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

"the courthouse clerk in Tennessee who says he'll go to jail before he'll take the Ten Commandments off the wall; and the tired old teacher who carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket and knows that while it is a living document it is not the plaything of ideologues."

How can Bush represent both of these people? It is contradictory. Is not seperation of church and state in the constitution? If that clerk wants to go to jail, so be it. But is the author saying that those 10 commandments should be on the court house wall, and that Bush would back this action? If so, he could he in the same breath say the constitution is not a "plaything"(I realize this is rhetorical).

I agree that the constitution should not be a plaything for idealouges-ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS IDEALOUGES. The thing that bothers me the most about this election is both the major candidates are born- again christians. Oh well.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), November 02, 2000.

Lars,

I know you addressed Flint on this, but speaking for myself, it's possible that on the religion thing I jumped the gun to some extent on Noonan. Yet she made other comments in the essay with respect to, for example, abortion, the Ten Commandments and God -- that seemed enough for me to categorize her as a classic, religious-based conservative.

I honestly don't intend that in a pejorative way, but to the extent she is such a conservative -- and again, I could be wrong -- I really couldn't support it -- from a purely political perspective, anyway, as it runs counter to my philosophy, which is more freedom-based.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

Lars:

Noonan writes (among other things)

"[Bush] became a deep believer in God. His religious commitment has meant for him the difference between a clear mind and a double mind. It has helped him become a man who is attached to truth on a continuing basis, and not just an expedient one."

Uh, his religious commitment has given him a clear mind and an attachment to truth? Whatever religion does to you, this is its exact opposite. Please.

"the Ohio nurse who worries about abortion and who knows that "You oppose abortion? Then don't have one!" is as empty and unsatisfying as "You don't like slavery? Then don't own one!"; the courthouse clerk in Tennessee who says he'll go to jail before he'll take the Ten Commandments off the wall..."

Uh, abortion is none of the government's business. Conservatives are supposed to be very sensitive to government meddling, and opposition to abortion is a religious doctrine. The government has no business promulgating religious doctrines. The Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall? Uh, just which laws is the courthouse supposed to be administering? And Noonan ADMIRES this?

"[Bush] thinks the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest speech ever given. This would strike some as an obvious thing to say, but it takes courage now to say the obvious thing..."

Let's parse this. To "some" this is obvious. To the rest of us, this is obvious nonsense. Yes, politically speaking it takes courage to babble nonsense -- unless you feel a sizeable voting bloc suffers these illusions and those who dont, don't dare complain. Noonan is *taking it for granted* that anyone who doesn't sincerely agree the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest speech ever, is a dunce! Please.

And finally, Noonan's punch line is a description of Bush as "a modest man of good faith". That is, he may not know too much, he may not be too bright, complex situations may confuse him, his phrasing may be clumsy, his facts may be garbled, but he *believes in God*, so we're all OK! He will "shepherd" us through whatever comes. Gag me.

And you see no religiosity in this essay? I see very little here of hard positions or promises, and lots of sticky stuff about how Bush was tested, but by God he learned from his tribulations and was Born Again with a deep and abiding understanding of ordinary people with their opposition to abortion, their misuse (oops, *proper* use) of the Ten Commandments, and blah blah blah. If I had to find an appropriate title for this essay, it would be...oops, Noonan beat me to it. Man of Faith! That's the TITLE! And you see no religiosity?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.

I ran out of time; not tying to hit and run. Anyway, My veiw of "their" term "living doc" means "we'll" interpret it for you, never mind what it actually says, which is what "they" have done with the amendments relating to taxes; which by the way, are collected from a public too lame to read and interpret the amendments for themselves. They(the public) would prefer that someone "allow" them their rights, rather than assert them.

BTW, this communist styled plaza in front of the IRS building in Landover,Md. has a granite pyramid with the constitution carved in it, but no Bill of Rights. Sorry, I don't have time to tell what that means.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 02, 2000.

My reaction to this piece is a lot like Flint's, right down to his "Gag me."

I'd like to know, if Mr. Bush lowers taxes, how that would not be detrimental to the Federal budget.

Ms. Noonan writes, "He will know how to step aside and let the country take center stage." I'm having trouble deciphering any meaning out of that metaphor.

She also writes, "He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong." Does this extend to debates?

However, I did resonate with this passage, "I don't think that sentence made sense, but you could speak it in a lot of places-- a faculty dinner, the vice president's house--and elicit nods of approval. And not in spite of the fact that it is nonsense but because of it."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), November 02, 2000.

David L:

Be careful not to equate tax rates with tax revenues. It's very common to lower taxes and find tax revenues going way up. In theory, there is an ideal tax rate to maximize revenues, such that gross tax revenues would be reduced if that rate were *either* raised or lowered. However, in practice we can only guess that that rate might be, and given politics as usual, only hazily approximate that guess.

I'd say if Bush would make a better President, it's because he has better instincts and a bit more common sense. But these are *despite* his religious faith, not because of it. And I'm always a bit suspicious of the depth of the faith of a politician from the bible belt. It doesn't seem to influence their actions much, and is a disaster when it does (remember Jimmy Carter?)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.

Flint, I don't equate them unconditionally. I am just skeptical of the claim that marginally reducing income tax rates from their current levels is going to stimulate a disproportionately large rise in income. You say this is common, maybe so, I haven't read as much history as I'd like. But can someone cite an instance in this country over the last hundred years, where an increase in tax revenues could be convincingly related to a tax cut rather than, say, to the business cycle.

At any rate, my beef is not that candidates promise tax cuts, but that they do so in apparent disregard for their effect on tax revenue or the budget. Not that this is new.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), November 02, 2000.

David L:

I consider this a statistical exercise. If business booms tend to follow tax cuts, and the correlation is good, we might suspect a causal relationship. We can actually SEE a causal relationship between a business boom and a tax revenue increase. But these are complex equations with a zillion variables, most of them difficult to quantify, and an equal number of relationships many of which may not be causal at all.

As for tax cuts or increases being based on *many* more factors than the budget alone, this is self evident. Indeed, the budget is at best a minor factor (and ought to be, considering how poor our model is).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.