Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin

In the Wall Street Journal, former Reagan speechwriter and conservative columnist, Peggy Noonan, discusses “Palin's Failin,’ and contends “What is it she stands for? After seven weeks, we don't know.”

More than ever on the campaign trail, the candidates are dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead. It's not only Sarah Palin but Mr. McCain, too, occasionally Mr. Obama, and, of course, George W. Bush when he darts out like the bird in a cuckoo clock to tell us we are in crisis. All of the candidates say "mom and dad": "our moms and dads who are struggling." This is Mr. Bush's former communications adviser Karen Hughes's contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that's too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it's all now the faux down-home, patronizing—and infantilizing—moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children—sorry, our kids—look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?

There has never been a second's debate among liberals, to use an old-fashioned word that may yet return to vogue, over Mrs. Palin: She was a dope and unqualified from the start. Conservatives and Republicans, on the other hand, continue to battle it out: Was her choice a success or a disaster? And if one holds negative views, should one say so? For conservatives in general, but certainly for writers, the answer is a variation on Edmund Burke: You owe your readers not your industry only but your judgment, and you betray instead of serve them if you sacrifice it to what may or may not be their opinion.

Here is a fact of life that is also a fact of politics: You have to hold open the possibility of magic. People can come from nowhere, with modest backgrounds and short résumés, and yet be individuals of real gifts, gifts that had previously been unseen, that had been gleaming quietly under a bushel, and are suddenly revealed. Mrs. Palin came, essentially, from nowhere. But there was a man who came from nowhere, the seeming tool of a political machine, a tidy, narrow, unsophisticated senator appointed to high office and then thrust into power by a careless Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose vanity told him he would live forever. And yet that limited little man was Harry S. Truman. Of the Marshall Plan, of containment. Little Harry was big. He had magic. You have to give people time to show what they have. Because maybe they have magic too.

But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives. In one now-famous case, Christopher Buckley was shooed from the great magazine his father invented. In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position.

At any rate, come and get me, copper.

Truman v. Bush

I have been reading David McCullough's Harry Truman biography. As I near the end, I am surprised by the sharp contrast between Truman's legacy and the unfavorable public opinion of his presidency around the time he announced he would not be seeking reelection.

In 1952, news polls reported that only 32 percent of the people approved of the way he was handling his job, despite his successes domestically and abroad. Sounding much like our current president Truman wrote:

I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he'd taken a poll in Egypt? What would Jesus Christ have preached if he'd taken a poll in Israel? It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. It's right and wrong.

In retrospect, Truman has been vindicated, his presidency considered an overall success.

President Bush appears to have much in common with Truman besides a disbelief in the utility of public opinion polls. Like Truman in 1952, Bush is overseeing an unpopular war, there is economic prosperity domestically and his approval rating is hovering in the 30's. Also like Truman, Bush has a stubborn belief in the decisions he makes and uses down-to-earth, straight forward rhetoric to appeal to the everyday person. The parallels beg the question; will history look back as favorably on George W. Bush? Admittedly, it is early to begin speculating, but I'll speculate no matter.

It worried me that despite all of Bush’s mistakes, he could be seen as perhaps one of the greatest presidents. But then I reflected on the leadership style of Truman and that of Bush. Because their presidencies’ have been consumed with foreign policy, I’ll focus there. Both faced their respective problems: Truman the rise of communism and Bush the emergence of Islamic extremism.

Truman was the reluctant leader. He admitted there were men more up to the task of being president than he, but the responsibility was his. In the first weeks in office Truman had to make decisions that brought an end to WWII, met with Stalin and Churchill to decide the fate of Europe and eventually implemented the Marshall plan. While Truman did not seek out these responsibilities, he made it clear that the buck stopped with him and he responded as he best knew how.

He was heavily criticized by everyone and expected to lose to Dewey in the 1948 presidential election, but won a stunning upset victory. He eventually committed American troops to fight an act of aggression in Korea, and was criticized by many for not taking General MacArthur’s advice to broaden the conflict to include China, which would purportedly bring a swift end to the war. Truman decided not to broaden the war, which he believed might risk starting World War III and end in a nuclear holocaust. While charged with being soft on communism, the Truman doctrine set the course to win the cold war.

Bush could be considered a victim of circumstances and the events on 9-11. In a way he was, but the country rallied around him and he took appropriate action in Afghanistan. After invading Afghanistan, the Bush doctrine broadened the war on terror to include Iraq.

Bush has pursued a war in Iraq that will likely be his biggest liability when historians start postulating about his legacy. It was the leadership he has shown in pursuing the Iraq War, which makes him vastly different than Harry Truman. The record will reflect that unlike Truman, Bush had a weak legal justification for going to war, pursued the war without international support and, ultimately, weakened the United Nations (UN). In setting the course for the fight against Islamic extremism, Bush has left the United States without strong international allies and the threat of military force to deal with emerging threats from Iran and South Korea.

In setting the strategy for winning the Cold War, Truman ensured the formation of the UN, bolstered its prominence in international affairs and strengthened our ties with international allies. Bush faces a new set of challenges, but one that he approaches with cowboy diplomacy, disdain for international institutions and air of arrogance, rather than humility and quiet confidence.

Two years from now I wonder what standard should be used to evaluate the success or failure Bush's presidency. One question that comes to mind is if when Bush leaves office, will the United States be better off then when he came into office? Truman certainly did.