Vahl comments on Noonan article

Here's the article, with comments from Vahl in brackets:

"Sometimes the leak is so bad that even a plumber can't fix it." This was the
concise summation of a cable political strategist the other day, after the third
and final presidential debate. That sounds about right, and yet the race in its
final days retains a feeling of dynamism. I think it is going to burst open or
tighten, not just mosey along. I can well imagine hearing, the day after
Election Day, a lot of "You won't believe it but I was literally in line at the
polling station when I decided."


APJohn McCain won the debate, and
he did it by making the case more effectively than he has in the past that
Barack Obama will raise taxes, when "now, of all times in America, we need to
cut people's taxes." He also scored Mr. Obama on his eloquence, using it against
him more effectively than Hillary Clinton ever did. When she said he was "just
words," it sounded like a bitter complaint. Mr. McCain made it a charge: Young
man, you attempt to obscure truth with the mellifluous power of your words. From
Mrs. Clinton it sounded jealous, but when Mr. McCain said it, you looked at Mr.
Obama and wondered if you'd just heard something that was true. For the first
time, Mr. Obama's unruffled demeanor didn't really work for him. His cool made
him seem hidden. [Good points. No problem so far.]

There is now
something infantilizing about this election. Mr. Obama continued to claim he
will remove wasteful spending by sitting down with the federal budget and going
through it "line by line." This is absurd, and he must know it. [Agreed] Mr. McCain continued to vow he will "balance the budget" in the next four
years. Who believes that? Does even he? [Who believed Clinton could do
it?]

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. [LOL] 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. [So true] 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? [It's
true. It's true.]

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. [Not a surprise.
Republicans baaaaaaad, according to the left.] 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. [Yes, but one must also consider whether your readers read
and understood your message. A clear simple message that people understand is
better than these opinion pieces that serve to confuse the public ... and are
used by the political opponent to serve their purposes.]

Here is a
fact of life that is also a fact of politics: You have to hold open the
possibility of magic. [Really. Tell us more, Gandalf.] 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. [He came from an era where magic was still possible. Now, with
Youtube and Freedom of Speech finding new voice every day, there is no place for
a Truman-like figure to hide and then rise to power. Truman could not be Truman
today. Truman's anti-semiticism would have been exposed for all the world to see
before he became VP, let alone Prez.] You have to give people time to show
what they have. ["Time is a luxury you don't have," says the opponents] 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. [And now, let the bashing of
Mrs. Palin's personality type begin.] She is a person of great ambition,
but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? [Perhaps, as
the Loyalist she is, she is merely exhibiting the following personality traits:
"Dedicated to individuals and movements in which they deeply believe ... feel
secure when systems and procedures are clearly defined ... Internal confusion
causes them to react unpredictably. Sarcastic."] She wants to rise, but
what for? [She's dedicated to her cause. I know that's a weird concept
in the cynical era we now live ... which again proves my point about Truman.] For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is
Bushian or Reaganite [Bush is a Reformer, Reagan
was a Challenger. That is why she seems different ... her personality type that she exhibits
IS different!]—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. [Loyalists
like Palin are skilled at saying things. See Joe Torre, another Loyalist
who is known for being a great manager -- not because of his strategies, but
because of his people skills and how he handles a clubhouse of athletes.
Saying things that are genuine and inspiring are what Loyalists do ... like it
or not. Again, in this era, such traits are under-appreciated and thought
not to exist. This is where Noonan is missing the boat on
Palin.]

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's
not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. [Loyalists are all about instincts and emotions -- those are there
strengths. They, when they are average to unhealthy, are also the
most disconnected with their thoughts of any personality type.] But what
instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? [It's a catchy line, especially coming from a
woman. Those are instincts that match our current era. It seems Noonan
wants the golden age '50's-style decorum, while also wanting to the Republicans
to win. Sorry -- it's not the '50's. You can't have both.] She
does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with
terrorists." [Attempts? She does not "Attempt." She DOES
it. Loyalists are experts at inspiring others to their cause when speaking
to a crowd. If anyone in this race shares the Messiah's personality type
(a healthy Loyalist), it's Palin, not Obama.] If the Ayers case is a
serious issue, treat it seriously [Loyalists use levity and humor.
That's just how it goes.]. 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. [Clearly, Noonan
does not like the qualities of the Loyalist Personality Type.] 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 [The Loyalist
is part of the Compliant Triad on the Enneagram circle. They tend to be
passive-aggressive (which explains why sixes like Palin use humor when talking
about serious stuff). Loyalists are not leaders. They are
inspirational.], 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 [A Loyalist like Palin believes the base can overcome, rise above their pain
... she is attempting to inspire them to greatness. She does not do this
like Reagan, because she's not a Challenger type. This is classic bias
against Personality Type Six.]. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she
chooses merely to excite [That's what sixes do! That's her brand of
inspiration]. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own
thoughts. [Loyalists, being disconnected from their thoughts, are not
chess players.]

No news conferences? Interviews now only with
friendly journalists? [More from the description of the Loyalist: "Invest their
time into whatever they deem to be safe and stable. Look to make alliances ...
Make many commitments to others, hoping they well reciprocate. Constantly
anticipating problems. Seek clear guidelines from others, and feel secure when
systems and procedures are clearly defined."] You can't be president or
vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure [Ask
Richard Nixon]. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see
where it got us [Noonan wants the President to talk to Keith Olbermann and
be more in touch with the left? Is that what I'm reading here? He
and Cheney have talked to the right-leaning media, and that didn't help
matters.]. 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 [MEANWHILE ... the left can attack the right without
reprisal? Sorry, but this is defeatist at this point. Bush is a
bizarro liberal anyway, so who expects him to address conservative views?
And who would expect a liberal to embrace a politician with an R next to his
name? That was McCain's mistake from the beginning of this campaign].
When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its
fracturing. [Democracies SHOULD be divided, politically.]

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. [Noonan is living in the past ... if Obama can get away with being
inexperienced and gaffs on the campaign trail, why can't Palin? Answer:
Loyalists do not get a free pass when they make mistakes, where Enthusiasts like
Obama do.]

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. [Look, it's not about motives.
Loyalists just don't do well in the spotlight. Look at Nixon ... Look at
Kerry. They were both Loyalists, and one had a tremendous fall from grace,
while the other failed to overcome attacks from his fellow swift-boat mates.] 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 [I wonder if Noonan defines conservatism by
the traits governed by personality type eight, the Challenger. IF she
does, she is barking up the wrong tree. That's not conservatism.
That's aggressiveness. That's George Steinbrenner. That's Gene
Roddenberry. That's the road to totalitarianism -- as exhibited by Saddam
Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic (both Challengers).] 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. [You did yourself
in. I suspect Noonan is a Loyalist herself. A strange irony,
indeed. I guess we really do hate the personality traits in others that
reflect our own weaknesses.]