Peggy Noonan doesn't think so, or at least she hasn't yet seen any evidence of it. I have to agree. Excerpts:
One always wonders with Mr. McCain: What exactly does he feel
passionately about, what great question? Or rather, what does he stand
for, really? For he often shows passion, but he rarely speaks of
meaning. The issues that summon his full engagement are issues on which
he's been challenged by his party and others. McCain, to McCain, is
defined by his maverickness. That's who he is. . .
He has positions, but a series of separate, discrete and seemingly
unconnected stands do not coherence make. Mr. McCain, in public, does
not dig down to the meaning of things, to why he stands where he
stands, to what understanding of life drives his political decisions.
But voters hunger for coherence, for a philosophical thread that holds
all the positions together. . .
What overall view of the world, of strategy, of
American meaning, is being expressed in Iraq? Who are we in the world?
What do we mean to do in the 21st century? And in what way does this
connect to a philosophical view of life, of the meaning of being here
on earth as Americans?
In the most successful political careers there is a
purpose, a guiding philosophy. Not an ideology—ideology is something
imposed from above, something abstract dreamed up by an intellectual.
Philosophy isn't imposed from above, it bubbles up from the ground,
from life. And its expression is missing with Mr. McCain.