Peggy Noonan: Forgetting Reagan's Lessons

Peggy Noonan came out with her analysis of President Bush's second inaugural. I note first that I am huge fan of Ms. Noonan. I must also say I was surprised by the negative review she gave the speech. I suppose though, it wasn't necessary that she didn't like it that surprised me (I never expect her to merely parrot the official line; and dissent is often a healthy thing even among a party [perhaps especially among a party]). What surprised me though was that it seemed to me that her main complaint was that Bush overreached by overzealously supporting liberty and freedom as a force in the world. Two thoughts come to mind:

1) What would Ronald Reagan say to one of his old speechwriters taking umbrage with someone who vociferously extols the power of freedom in the world; especially if that someone is the President of the United States (especially freedom openly supported by the power and might of the United States)? Noonan's criticism reminds me of the same criticism that was lobbed against Reagan when he had the nerve to imply that Soviet Union could be defeated, despite what CW maintained.

And 2)That anyone could criticize a President for taking a stand against tyranny illustrates how far our country has come (Ever read the Federalist Papers?). It makes me wonder if our "elites" have become so infatuated with the "diplomacy of nuance" that as a nation we are really willing to accept that our action (or inaction, perhaps more accurately) can allow for injustice and the snuffing of human liberty so long as we aren't perceived as with too much hubris or imperialism. Maybe it's that I am too much of a neo-conservative, but I don't particularly care what we are perceived to be. Now, I perhaps overstate my general disregard for nuance in foreign policy. But the day that nuance trumps American support for liberty in the world is the day that America stands for nothing. Our country was founded on the principle of certain inalienable rights. While the Founding Fathers realized the limitation of their ability to guarentee the sanctity of the rights God gives all man, I seriously doubt they would argue that it is somehow anethema to Americanism to believe that those "inalienable" rights only are applicable to American citizens. Their Higher Power, afterall, held domain over all man. Not just America. To this end then, I believe that as long as we act in the belief of and on the behalf of the righteousness of human liberty in the world, then posterity will judge us well. I believe this was Reagan's guiding principle. In part, I learned this from reading When Character Was King by none of than Peggy Noonan. How she missed that part of her book is beyond me.