Peggy Noonan’s latest has the feeling of a blockbuster, the sort of column that people will be referring back to months or years from now, as the beginning—or end—of something.

It was a relief to this Blog Goliard to see someone so widely read, and so well connected to the White House (at least in the past), say some of the things that we ordinary footsoldiers have been mumbling to each other for some time. Taken as a whole, the points she made served as confirmation of something that I have suspected for some time: that the biggest problem with the President Bushes, father and son, is that they are Republicans who have internalized the political “morality” of the Left.

I am not speaking of specific policies, but rather of the fundamental attitude that takes it for granted that liberalism is virtuous, even when its policies fail, and conservatism is immoral, even when its policies succeed. Most Republicans who breathe the air of D.C. long enough seem to succumb to this to some degree, and wind up gratefully accepting compliments for having “grown” in office (in mild cases), or obtaining the dreaded Strange New Respect (in more serious cases).

If I am right, then it should be no wonder that the Bushes squander their political inheritance so. It’s hard to preserve and defend the legacy when in their hearts, they know they’re wrong (or at least wicked). I’ve tried to popularize this concept as the “reverse Goldwater”, but so far none of my e-mail acquaintances at National Review Online have taken the bait.

So many things fall into place in light of this theory. For instance, any amateur psychologist would tell you that the Bushes’ resentment of their own base is inevitable. We make them feel icky, yet they depend on us to win elections, so they can’t disown us in exchange for liberal plaudits as they’d like to. What an awful bind we put them in. The very least we can do in return—they think—is disappear gracefully after Election Day, or offer absolute blind loyalty if we don’t disappear. If we fail, we risk a fury reserved only for perceived enemies to the right.

Or how about the recurring impulse to make deals with Ted Kennedy, and thereby share his aura of liberal virtue, instead of with…oh, I don’t know…how about any other Democratic Senator who is less reflexively Leftist, more trustworthy and honorable, and less unremittingly partisan and hostile to the Administration? (Yes, there’s a lot in this post that is elaboration and amplification of the one two posts down. But I’m going to keep taking bites at this apple until I feel I’ve nailed it.)

And of course comprehending “compassionate conservatism” is a snap (message: “I’m not heartless and evil like other conservatives…probably because I’m not really that conservative”), as is the exceptional indulgence of disloyalty so long as it comes from “moderate” rebels (Lincoln Chafee is closer to the virtuous pole than W. himself; of course the NRSC will go to the mat for him).

My only worry about this theory is that it may be too simple and explain too much. But that’s not always a bad thing, is it?