Has Peggy Noonan heard of Henry Kissinger?
October 12, 2009 3:32 pm ET by Jamison Foser
It was always absurd that Ronald Reagan, whose political project led to the end of the gulag and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and who gambled his personal standing in the world for a system that would protect the common man from annihilation in a nuclear missile attack, could not win it. But nobody wept over it, and for one reason: because everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA--no conservatives need apply.
Well, Peggy, when you speak of world peace these days the first that DOESN'T spring to mind are conservative politicians.
The conservatives of today can worship Reagan all they want, and he lucked out with a few of his initiatives, but if they think that at the time he was seen as promoting peace, they're smoking something.
Those were by design.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect.
And if I were her, I wouldn't try to emphasize the fact that apparently liberals are the only ones who try to promote peace as if that's a bad thing to be known for! Hint, Peggy - it's better to be known for promoting peace than for the alternative!
If you actually have a missle program that, you think, will stop any incoming attack. It make you MORE likely to use your own missles.
Now if you were the Russians, or anyone else, how would you feel and react. I know I wouldn't sleep well, and it can justify the "might as well shoot them off now while I can still use them" type of thinking.
This ought to get your knickers in a knot...
Reagan telling Soviet jokes
My we are shortsighted! It really didn't have to work it just had to make the CCCP think it would work. Mission accomplished. Budget constraints and political infighting were the real "failures" that doomed SDI. To be fair there were power constraints at the time, but those problems have been solved. With the right admin in place and missile shield will become a reality at some point in the future.
SDI...the next Generation
More for the non-believers
Peggy Noonan claimed that SDI would have protected the average Joe. It wouldn't have, and it would have actually re-escalated the nuclear arms race. It was a stupid idea that disqualified Reagan from ever being considered as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient!
Do some research on this topic. I have. SDI was pie in the sky dreams, not a reality that could come to pass. Right now they don't even have a workable platform upon which to develop this - the most promising technology was defunded about 10 years ago. And Global Security.org? Do you have no idea how partisan that group is? Omigod.
What the left conveniently forgets is that Regan and Gorbachev both felt the abolition of nuclear weapons was important and confirmed this at Reykjavik. Gorbachev in his own words:
SDI, was one cog in the wheel. It was a very important cog that pushed the US's technology hand and forced the Soviets losing hand. They did re-escalate the arms race as you assert, but started a slow retreat with honor on their part.
I've not only done research on the subject, I worked in the field. What exactly do you take offense to in Global Security's site? Are you saying the data is false? This technology WILL become a reality in our lifetime. It may not be operational until our children are older, but it most certainly will happen. Don't believe me though, do some research on what the Chinese have planned.
SDI did not stop or slow down any arms race. It didn't lead us towards disarmament. It would have had to do one of those two things for it to have helped qualify Reagan for a Nobel Peace Prize, which is why we were talking about SDI, remember?
Did I say someplace that we're still in an arms race with the USSR, which doesn't even exist any more?
Don't you think that the fact that they don't exist any more might be the biggest reason we aren't in an arms race with them any more?
Talk about not thinking about what one is saying!!! You get the booby prize for that today for sure!
I guess reading comprehension isn't your forte? I said it was but one cog in the wheel but a very important cog. One that did lead us to a path to disarmament. Both Reagan and Gorbachev wanted that. Do some research son. There was mutual respect between these great men. The left refuses to admit it because of their blind partisan hate for anything Reagan.
When you get a grasp on history, get back to us. Your "demonstration" of your knowledge of the cold war is wanting.
Reagan's Record II
Did he win the Cold War?
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Feb. 16, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/100979/
Yeah...the Saudis and the US sending arms to the Afghanis, and the US military training them ALSO had to do with Afghanistan...and both Carter and Reagan upping the US military budget, thus breaking the Soviet bank had something to do with it. Reagan was not SOLELY responsible, but he certainly played a part.
BTW, you do understand that you just gave Reagan credit for creating al Qaeda, right?
If Foser was really concerned about rebutting Noonan...he could assign his research staff to list those "political figures" who have won the award...liberal and conservative.
That would certainly accomplish more than a one word link to Kissinger.
Of the ones who are, US Republicans include Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Charles Gates Dawes, Frank Kellogg, Nicholas Murray Butler, and Henry Kissinger.
Democrats from the United States include Woodrow Wilson, Cordell Hull, George Marshall, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barack Obama.
Oh my God! Six to Six! Talk about "fair and balanced!"
Now, clearly, these men don't all fit the modern American liberal and conservative definitions. For instance, Roosevelt, a Republican was a conservationist and campaigned against allowing corporations to become too large. Wilson, a Democrat, allowed the re-segregation of the federal government.
What all these men have in common, though, is that they recognized the importance of international cooperation and diplomacy. THAT'S why they won their Nobels -- not because they were liberal (not all of them were), but because they were internationalists.
You list Frank Kellog as conservative...yet during his term in the senate the nobelprize.org website says that Kellogg "supported Woodrow Wilson in all of his efforts"...leaving his political leanings open to debate.
In any case, citing the 12 you listed...there has been exactly one conservative named in the last 78 years...and 5 liberals.
I'd say Noonan makes a salient point about the committee's politics.
Let's save time and agree with Noonan that the Nobel committee is liberal. That's because, next to American conservatives, just about everybody in the world is liberal.
I also made the point that in my list, not all Republicans were conservative by the modern definition, and not all Democrats met the modern definition of liberal.
Maybe you should read my original comment again.
You said it...not me. You laid out the case that there were 6 conservatives and 6 liberals...fair and balanced as you said.
You just overlooked the fact that it has been since the turn of the century that the Nobel group has awarded conservatives the peace prize...ergo, Noonan is on solid ground when she claims NCNA.
I said six Republicans and six Democrats. I made the point explicitly (TWICE) that Republican did not equal conservative in the modern understanding of that term, and that Democrat did not equal liberal in that word's modern understanding.
I made the further point that the reason the US Nobel Peace Prize recipients received their awards is that they were internationalist, as opposed to isolationist. Internationalism, not conservative or liberal, is what wins that award.
You're wrong. I'm right. I can't make myself any more clear than that.
So my guess is the answer is that he's "not serious," because he can't see past his biases to engage the truth.
hmmm... ever hear of 'cut and paste'? Here's the quote you are lying about:
Of the ones who are, US Republicans include Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Charles Gates Dawes, Frank Kellogg, Nicholas Murray Butler, and Henry Kissinger.
Democrats from the United States include Woodrow Wilson, Cordell Hull, George Marshall, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barack Obama
And haven't conservatives been trying to claim Teddy Rosevelt and (sometimes) Martin Luther as one of their own? Did you forget those talking points?.
That would certainly accomplish more than a one word link to Kissinger.
Wow, weaselly misses the point yet again! Here, again, are Noonan's words:
"... everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA--no conservatives need apply." (my emphasis)
In order for Foser to rebut this point, all he has to do is provide a single counterexample. Foser did exactly that. Thus, he made the point, and won the argument.
I live in Columbus,OH. In June, I witnessed firsthand, one of these "grassrooted expressions of a healthy democracy" the teaparty. It was like a klan rally without the sheets. If we on the left critique these, we are called racist who are trying to hinder their First Amendment rights.
You all are aware of the vitriol and lies surrounding the debate surrounding healthcare reform.
The constant attacks about the stimulous package-- our side should have explained that until we reset manufacturing toward green jobs, that the economy will continue to contract because:
1. Lack of education of many of the people currently unemployed.
2. The huge amount of presonal creditcard debt. and
3. The lagtime of shovel ready jobs, from planning, zoning aprroval etc.
Where are our vocal leaders? Why are we not framing the arguments? Where is the vocal DNC leadership? Why has it been so hard for us to get our message out to the general population?
This Nobel Peace Prize has become another 2-by-4 to beat Obama with.
I just signed up to work as a volunteer in the communications department with the DNC. The midterm elections are a little more then a year away. I was tired of being frustrated on the sideliness.
WE did sweep the elections 11 months ago , right?!?
I am so tired of that blather.
Reaguns saved the world from communism.
Reguns caused the Berlin wall to fall.
What a load of hooie.
Communism collapsed because it was corrupt and couldn't sustain itself any longer. Did Reaguns help the Russians spend themselves into debt. Sure, with star wars, the pershing 2 program, etc, etc.
By constantlay antagonizing them, like we really needed to do that, he helped them justify the money they were spending on "defense".
Of course, St. Ronnie also was the tax cutting champion of the common man. Even though he actually raised taxes 8 times during his tenure. (Well, except for the top 1%0
He worked toward ending the Iran - Iraq War by doing "whatever's necessary" to see that Iraq won.
When congress would not approve funding to support the Contras in Nicaragua, Reagan sold arms to terrorists in Iran to raise money to see that the Contras would overthrow the legitimate government of that country.
He made catsup a vegetable, cut school funding and increased the military budget. Nothing says peace like planning for war.
Was there ever a man of peace more deserving than him?
Maybe he should have won the Chemistry Prize? (or Medicine?)
Sound familiar?
They should choose some conservatives for the award to even things up, irrespective of how deserving those conservatives are, right?
Do you read the other comments before adding your own? Weaselly already tried this and failed before. At least he can write.
Here's what I wrote about the subject to him--let's see if it sinks through to you.
In other words, truthseeker (and congratulations for coming here, because here you will actually find it), adding people to the list will not show how "right" Noonan is; her point is totally and incontrovertibly wrong no matter what gets added to it. If you have cups of sugar on one side and a cup of gasoline on the other, the mix will still be poisonous no matter how much more sugar you add.