Noonan inherently knows that the Bush ship is going down. She is vainly
trying to separate the conservative movement from Bush's sinking
ship. As November election approaches, I expect to see more rancor in the
ranks - and afterwards, lots of finger-pointing.
In
her column today, Noonan offered some commentary on the staff changes
at the White House and explained, with surprising candor, why moving a
few deckchairs around won't make a substantive difference.
George W. Bush, on the other hand,
does not tolerate dissent, argument, bitter internal battles. He is the
decider. He decides, and the White House carries through. He is loyal
to his aides, who carry out his wishes. (It is unclear whether this is
a loyalty born of emotional connection or one born of calculation: Do
it my way and the tong protects you.) His loyalty means they will most
likely not be fired or leaked against, no matter what heat they take
from the outside. And so his aides move forward with the sharpness and
edge of those who know their livelihoods and status are secure. Bruce
Bartlett has written of how, as a conservative economist, he was
treated with courtesy by the Clinton White House, which occasionally
sought out his views. But once he'd offered mild criticisms of the Bush
White House he was shut out, and rudely, by Bush staffers. Why would
they be like that? Because they believe that as a conservative, Mr.
Bartlett owes his loyalty to the president. He thought his loyalty was
to principles.
There are many stories like this,
from many others. It leaves friends on the outside having to
self-censor or accept designation as The Enemy. It leaves a
distinguished former government official and prominent Republican
saying, in conversation, "Those people aren't drinking the Kool-Aid,
they're sucking it from a spigot!"
The president has taken, those
around him say, great comfort in biographies of previous presidents.
All presidents do this. They all take comfort in the fact that former
presidents now seen as great were, in their time, derided,
misunderstood, underestimated. No one took the measure of their
greatness until later. This is all very moving, but: Message to all
biography-reading presidents, past present and future: Just because
they call you a jackass doesn't mean you're Lincoln.
Noonan explained her belief that the
staff "shake-up" is of little consequence because the president, as she
put it, "does not tolerate dissent, argument, bitter internal battles"
the way an informed president should. Noonan
concludes that it's less important for the staff to change and more
important for Bush to broaden his base of information by tolerating
"dissent, argument, ambiguity." This, she argues, would be more
meaningful progress for the Bush White House, as opposed to shuffling
around a few staffers, which is, as Noonan put it, is merely the
"appearance of change."
My only point would be is that the conservatives (at least, the
libertarian, small-government, fiscal conservative ones) have a right
to cut Bush et al loose. Rove and Addington have not governed this
country as conservatives, they have just used the Republicanite party
and the residual conservative leanings of the American people from the
Reagon era to seize power and enrich their friends while trying to
recreate the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon.
First, I'm not at all comfortable
agreeing so much with Noonan, but today I'll make an exception. Second,
I think Noonan may soon be taken off the White House Christmas-card
list and won't be invited down to the ranch.
In
her column today, Noonan offered some commentary on the staff changes
at the White House and explained, with surprising candor, why moving a
few deckchairs around 
