Schoolin' Peggy Noonan

About a week ago I let loose with a diatribe that took Peggy Noonan to task for condescendingly interpreting the recent election results as a vote for maturity.  A vote, that is, against the immaturity expressed by the Tea Party and some of its favorite candidates, and most especially a vote against the movement's darling, at least as Ms. Noonan understands her, Sarah Palin.  Following up, she now intends to tell us just what those mature people look like and, not surprisingly, for her they look like people who are acceptable to the Main Stream Media (MSM).

The mainstream media already has a story line in its head, and it is that a lot of these new Congress critters are a little radical, a little nutty. Media bias is what we all know it is, largely political but also having to do with the needs of editors and producers. The media is looking for drama. They are looking for a colorful story. They want to do reporting that isn’t bland, that has a certain edge. We saw this throughout the past year as they covered big tea party rallies. A reporter would be walking along with a cameraman. At one picnic blanket she sees a sober fellow and his handsome family. He looks like an orthodontist or a midlevel manager. His family looks happy, normal, pleasant. Right next to them, on a foldout lawn chair, is a scowling woman in a big straw bonnet with a dozen tea bags hanging from the brim. She’s holding a sign, a picture of Obama in a Hitler mustache. Who does the reporter choose to interview? I think we know. A better question might be who would you pick if you were that reporter and had a producer back in the newsroom who wanted interesting copy, colorful characters and vivid pictures. The mainstream media this January will be looking for the nuts....The point is when they want to paint you as nuts and yahoos, don’t help them paint you as nuts and yahoos.

No, Ms. Noonan, and all like-minded pundits, that's not what the point is.

My favorite sign from one of the Tea Party rallies held this past year read: "It doesn't matter what I put on this sign, they'll call it racist anyway."  By "they", the sign-holder meant, of course, the MSM.

That's part of what the point is.  Another part is this.

I remember watching during the early 1990's an episode of Bill Buckley's TV show Firing Line in which his guest was the political scientist James Q. Wilson.  At one point in the interview, Buckley asked him what he thought about Rush Limbaugh who was just then emerging as a conservative phenomenon.  I can't recall what Wilson said, but Buckley offered that Limbaugh reminded him a bit of Ronald Reagan in one important respect.  That is, Limbaugh, like Reagan, did not care what the New York Times thought of him.  Not that either decided not to care, or was determined not to care, but, rather, that they simply didn't give the Times any thought at all, one way or the other.

If not from me, then take a lesson from your hero Ronald Reagan, Peggy.  First, the only way any conservative's behavior will ever be acceptable to the MSM is when it's, well, liberal.  And even then they'll mock you for being a hypocrite.  Second, why would you ever want to give them the power to call the tune?  We want them reacting to us, not the other way around.

Peggy Noonan and the many others who are supposed to be on our side should stick to their fear and loathing of Sarah Palin.  She'll continue to get richer for it and the rest of us can remain focused on saving the country.