It’s His Rubble Now
Peggy Noonan is a gifted writer who worked in the Reagan administration and has written voluminous political commentary since. She has an amazing ability to bring an issue down to its simple basics. In this article she rightly gauges the Obama presidency and calls him to responsibility. I hope this article made it to his desk. It could save his presidency–if he is willing to “change.” RB
It’s His Rubble Now
And the American People What Him to Fix it
By Peggy Noonan
At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.
Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.
President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.
It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”
The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.
The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.'” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.
This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.
But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous description of unhappy voters as people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speak of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.
But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.
How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.
The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.
The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.
The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)
The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.
In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.
Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.
At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.
“Well Done Faithful Friends of Marriage & Family”
REFERENDUM 71 COUNTY VOTES
APPROVE COUNTIES ARE GREEN (52.95%) REJECT COUNTIES ARE YELLOW (47.05%)
I want to thank and encourage all those who worked for the rejection of Referendum 71 in Washington State during the recent election. We lost that battle by a small margin, but what you accomplished is lasting and will bear great fruit.
There is Someone far greater than I who says to your heart “Well done, good and faithful servant. You were faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the rest of your Master” (Matthew 25:21).
The things we do for a Higher Purpose are never in vain. They create faith and character in our own lives, they positively impact the lives of others, and they lay the foundations for future victories and accomplishments that will glorify God and benefit people.
We lost this particular battle, but the war is not over. There will be many other victories and defeats along the way of our short lives here on earth. In the end, good will triumph and every tear will be wiped away. Until then, we need to be steadfast and continue to seek his kingdom and his righteousness.
Some thought we shouldn’t have entered this particular battle. I humbly disagree. There were many battles, I’m sure that General George Washington would have preferred to sit out during the American Revolutionary War such as the battles for New York and Germantown. They ended in defeat. But God used those skirmishes to prove and refine the army to persevere toward the ultimate goal of winning the war. Some battles you don’t choose–it’s just right to stand up for liberty in all situations and places.
There will always be battles we win and some we lose. We must always keep our eyes on the bigger picture–in this case, the war for our society and culture. In a fallen world, we may even lose the larger war for periods of time (think of Israel’s Old Testament roller coaster of renewal and decline), but the final triumph of good over evil is as certain as the dawn.
We must always persevere knowing that right–in Christ–is the Ultimate Victor.
We accomplished a minor miracle in the Referendum 71 battle–collecting over 125,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Well done!
We mobilized up to 200,000 people to get involved in the great cause of preserving marriage and protecting children. A small grassroots awakening has begun, and if we continue to keep our fires lit and expanding, then a bon-fire of blessing can burst onto the scene. Well done!
Many of you practiced your civic and ethical duty by putting up signs, handing out leaflets, contributing to media adds, and waving signs at sidewalk rallies and small parades. The Slavic churches reminded us that freedom is a precious thing to retain and nurture in any society. They led the way in a number of our communities and by their actions taught the truth that “freedom is not the ability to do want you want, but the wisdom to do you ought.” Well done!
Some of our compatriots sat out this particular issue because they’ve bought the popular idea that any kind of sex is okay if there is “commitment and love.” I’m proud of you that you see the fallacy of that argument–that consenting adults doesn’t make it okay. From a five thousand year moral consensus standpoint, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality are all wrong. They are destructive to adults, hurtful to kids, and separate us from God. On the contrary, you understand the real definition of love which is: “Doing what’s best for another person from God’s point of view.” That doesn’t include any of the above actions under any circumstances. For your clarity of vision, well done!
Thank you for your attitude that you showed in this debate. I know that the media and others try to paint the picture that you are bigoted, narrow, and unloving in trying to preserve one-man-one woman marriage. They say you are homo phobic. Now I’m sure that somewhere on the American fringe some homo phobic people exist. But I’ve personally never met one–and I know that description doesn’t fit you. You simply care deeply for people, believe in the institution of marriage, and especially don’t want to see children wrongly influenced or suffer in any way due to the break-up of the traditional home. As our flyer explained “every person needs a mom and a dad.” You believe that passionately and want everyone to experience its reality and blessing.
Thank you also for loving those who are engaged in homosexual acts and may never understand your heart for them. Many of them are your friends, just as you have friends that fornicate or commit adultery, or lie or steal. You don’t wish any of them ill, you simply want them to turn from their destructive behavior and experience the grace and power of God to live a changed life–just like you have done. Some of you even persevered under some harassment and death threats made by hardened members of the homosexual community. You responded with kindness and prayed for your persecutors. Well done!
You kept the debate civil and focused. This issue was not ultimately about domestic partnerships, but at chipping away at the sacredness and uniqueness of marriage. You saw through the deception and propaganda and took a stand for what’s right–in meekness and gentleness. Because of my own public profile in the campaign, I had homosexual activists dialing me up on my cell phone. One such trans gender leader named “Susan” who once was “Phil” was amazed that I didn’t hate homosexuals nor was trying to take away anybody’s rights. I simply believed in marriage between men and women and loved people enough to point them in the right direction. She/he and I had a productive hour’s conversation and agreed to meet for coffee to talk further. You also reached out in caring ways. Well done!
As you know, we won the battle for public opinion in 29 of Washington’s 39 counties. If it weren’t for the Goliath of King County, we would have scored a solid victory for marriage and children. But we have allowed a large Greater-Seattle population move the state of Washington in a socially radical and secular direction. It is now up to us build a wall of prayer throughout the Emerald City stronghold, pour the love of Christ into its streets and neighborhoods, and bring people to faith and moral sanity within this large blue island in a red sea. That will take time, great effort, and supernatural power.
But I believe you can do it. Nothing is too great for the Author of marriage and family.
Be encouraged for the stand you’ve taken.
Well done!
Now on to the next battle with faith, hope, and love.
The Equality Smokescreen in the Marriage Debate
smoke screen: noun 1. a mass of dense smoke produced to conceal an area, vessel, or plane from the enemy. 2. something intended to disguise, conceal, or deceive; camouflage.
In times past when armies wanted to disguise their tactics to gain an advantage over the enemy, they would often resort to producing a cloud of smoke to hide their true intentions.
The same tactic is being used today in the battle for marriage.
In the past forty years of Western civilization where secularism has gained some ground, many time-tested moral codes are now under attack. Secularism wants it to be “okay” i.e. moral to fornicate (remember the “free love” of the sixties?), to commit adultery, and engage in homosexual acts. If you’re a consistent secularist, you’re also okay with pedophilia (if its “consensual,”), and even bestiality. In a secularist utopia, sex is a high priority god–and ones’ worship of it can take any form he chooses. Makes sense only if you accept the faulty premise that man is his own master.
Which brings us to the issue at hand. In a few days, on November 3, the states of both Maine and Washington will vote on various bills related to the definition of marriage. In Washington, Referendum 71 is a bill by the state legislature that expands the definition of domestic partnerships to include all the rights of married folks–the “Everything but Marriage” bill. It’s a massive legislative monstrosity that contains scores of pages because every time marriage is mentioned in our state regulations, Referendum 71 changes the statute to include domestic partnerships. Though these domestic partnerships include some seniors living together, they were basically designed to create moral legitimacy for homosexual acts.
That’s the true intent of Referendum 71–to change the five thousand year historical, two thousand year civilizational, and two hundred and twenty year American definition of sexual morality.
It’s all being done under the smokescreen of a very American and hallowed word–equality. Listen to the words of the Seattle Times, the Emerald City’s only remaining newspaper and strong advocate for the passage of Referendum 71.
In an October 24, 2009 lead story in the “NW Saturday” section called “Religion No Litmus Test on Ref 71,” the writers acknowledge that though 2000 years of history should have Christians voting to reject Referendum 71, there are “many believers [that] support the domestic partnership partnership law saying that the referendum is not about marriage, but about equality–which the Bible calls them to work toward.”
Quoting a liberal Episcopal bishop–from a dying denomination that is losing many churches and thousands of Christians over their anti-Christian position on homosexuality, the article goes on to say, “All Referendum 71 is trying to do is to give them (gay and lesbian couples) some of the equal protections that help them function as a committed couple in society. I’m for that.” And quoting a leader in another diminishing church–the United Methodists–the case for equality is mentioned a third time: “Our faith community believes that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law.”
Equality. Equal rights.
How can anybody be against such an apple pie American concept as equality?
But the argument of “equality” is a smokescreen that blurs our line of sight to the following piercing realities.
Let’s begin with the author of equality–God–whether your tradition is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Deist or Nature’s God. All major religions (except secularism) and their subsequent moral codes believe that God designed marriage and that only a man and a woman can marry, i.e. “join together” and become one. The Judeo-Christian model was confirmed by none other than Jesus Christ himself who said in Mark 10:6-9:
“From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide.”
God made them male and female. Sounds like wise, specific, intelligent design. Marriage is not about equal rights or equality. It’s about God’s design for human relationships, their nurture and their multiplication. God made men with a certain physical/emotional construct. He made women with a complimentary make-up (including plumbing). According to divine design and purpose, he wants them to join together in love and matrimony, produce and nurture children, and raise them up to perpetuate the human race.
That doesn’t sound narrow or complicated does it? It’s common sense. Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary, written during a time of far greater intellectual achievement and moral sanity than today gives the following logical definition of God’s design for marriage:
“The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God Himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
There it is. That’s the entire definition–God joining a man and woman together by design, for life, to curb immoral behavior, to promote family happiness, and produce and take care of the kids.
For thousands of years we accepted that common sense explanation. In light of the truth about marriage’s design and social contract, we believed that:
- Fornication (sex before wedlock) was hurtful. It’s sex without life commitment.
- Adultery was scandalous. It’s sex without faithfulness.
- Homosexuality was perverted. It’s unnatural sex outside of God’s natural design.
- Pedophilia was destructive. It doesn’t protect children.
- Bestiality was vile. It’s demeans man who is “made in God’s image.”
We believed those truths until a powerful and vocal minority of homosexual activists formed a plan to change the accepted definition of holy matrimony. They said “We want equal rights!”
But marriage was never about equality or equal rights. It’s exclusively concerned with God’s concept of social order and human happiness. God designed men to marry women–for many obvious reasons. Yet, even in the wonderful enterprise of marriage, which I’ve personally enjoyed for thirty-three years, there are some qualifications that limit equal access:
1. We are not to marry close relatives. (E.g. Leviticus 20:17-21). Even a man or woman can’t demand to marry anyone. God is smart enough to know that marrying close relatives and having children by them weakens rather than strengthens the gene pool. Every nation on earth has smart laws against incest and marrying close-of-kin.
2. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy was tolerated in ancient civilizations as an accommodation to the harsh realities of life. Due to extensive warfare when men died and there were more women than men, coupled with the inability of a woman to provide for themselves, polygamy was sometimes permitted. But it was never the ideal. Mark 10:6-9 is the pattern.
So marriage can never be argued from the standpoint of equality. If Referendum 71 is approved by the voters of the state of Washington on the basis of a false demand for “equality” from homosexuals, then here’s what will happen. If homosexuals have equal access to marriage, then so do adults and children, adults and animals, relatives with relatives, and any number of partners (two or three people saying they love each other and want to “marry”–or why not eight or ten?).
If this is a matter of equal access by all human beings, then lawsuits and alternative arrangements will fly in every direction–and true marriage and family life will eventually collapse. If we allow that to happen, we will have been stupid enough to throw away five thousand years of wisdom and social order to bow to sexual perversion and experimentation.
So when you hear that equality argument made by someone promoting homosexual liaison or any other living arrangement demanding a right to the marriage table, take a moment to peer deeply into the smoke and darkness to the true reality lurking in the background.
It’s really the hideous form of sexual confusion that you’re really looking at.
It’s looking for moral approval.
It wants to destroy you and your children.
Don’t be deceived.
Commit your own marriage plans to God’s wonderful design and vote to REJECT Referendum 71 and every other scheme to alter the God-given institution of marriage.