?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Isn't it Time for the Smart Guy to Win?

Let me start with this:  I have many friends and acquaintances who are conservatives and Republicans.  I disagree with all of them on most issues, but I believe them all to be thoughtful, intelligent people.  My mother-in-law and father-in-law are both Republicans.  I have tremendous respect for both of their intellects.  There are many on the GOP side in public life who I hold in high esteem even as I disagree vehemently with their issue stances. Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, John Boehner, Dick Lugar, Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe; these are all intelligent people.  Dick Cheney is as close to a living incarnation of Lord Voldemort as we're ever likely to see in public office, but I always used to respect his mind.  Antonin Scalia is a liberal's nightmare, not only because he is so conservative on all questions of jurisprudence, but also because he is so freakin' brilliant.

In short, not only would I never say that all Republican politicians are stupid, but I would go so far as to say that most are truly blessed with keen minds.

So how is it that over the past thirty years Republican national tickets have become the refuge for the inarticulate and the intellectually incurious?  How is that people like Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin to name just three, have managed to reach the pinnacle of power in their party, leaping past people who are far more deserving and infinitely more qualified?

Sarah Palin's performance in last night's debate was very Bushesque, and I don't mean that in a good way.   She had a few answers ready, and no matter the question she was determined to use them.  How else do you explain a question on bankruptcy being answered with a discussion of energy policy?  Taxes and energy -- that's what she was ready to talk about, and she kept running back to them.  When she strayed from the script she rambled and stumbled and was clearly beyond her depth.  And despite her best efforts -- her folksiness, her winks and snarky comments, her winning smile -- she couldn't hide this.  Yes, she "exceeded expectations," but only because her performance in recent interviews had been so disastrous as to raise questions about her fitness to be governor of Alaska, much less as Vice President.  But when it comes right down to it, her performance last night was singularly unimpressive. 

Bush won in 2000 against Al Gore because in part, more people thought he was a regular guy.  He was folksy, too.  He had a quick, mischievous smile and could tell a joke.  Nevermind that he wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box.  Al Gore might have been smarter and better prepared for the office, but he was annoying.  He was that know-it-all kid in the class who gets the best grades but who no one likes.  Bush was the cool kid who got "Cs" on all his papers and tests but was a cut up in the cafeteria.  Same thing with Bush-Kerry four years later.  Same thing with Bush I vs. Dukakis.  Bill Clinton was probably the most brilliant person to run for President in the last half century -- him and John Kennedy.  Clinton is a voracious reader, a lightning quick study, and a wonderful speaker, off the cuff or scripted.  He was charismatic as hell, which is why he won twice; but he was also always the smartest person in the room, which is why he left office with approval ratings in the sixties.

The fact is that Democrats tend to choose intelligent nominees, many of whom turn out to be lousy candidates (Clinton is the obvious exception), while Republicans tend to choose intellectual lightweights who are charismatic.  Sarah Palin fits the mold perfectly.  I find her pretty obnoxious, but I can see why people are drawn to her.  That is, until I start to think about the fact that this is a contest for President and Vice President of the United States.  Then I can't see it at all.

For some reason Americans don't like intellectuals.  And this goes back far beyond the Reagan years.  I remember my parents telling me about Adlai Stevenson, the brilliant governor of Illinois who lost to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.  He was attacked for being "an egghead," a strange epithet which seems to be the 1950s version of "elitist."

Look, in case you haven't noticed, things aren't going so well right now.  The economy sucks.  We're fighting two wars; one of them has been going on for way, way too long, and the other is going very badly.  Our planet is dying a slow, painful death.  Our nation's standing in the world is lower than it's been at any time since the War of 1812.  Isn't this a time when we should be looking for someone really, really smart to lead the country?  Doesn't it make sense to look for someone who is intellectually curious, who is a terrific communicator, who has a nimble mind?  I don't want my President to be "plain folk."  I want him or her to be smart as hell.  I don't want the guy who graduated fifth from last at the Naval Adademy, or the guy who got drunk instead of studying while at Yale, or for that matter, the one who went to five different colleges in six years.  I want the one who aced his classes and made history by achieving academic honors in law school.  And I want the Vice Presidential nominee who is informed, who can speak intelligently about all the issues, who answers the questions he's actually been asked.  To borrow a line from Aaron Sorkin, these are serious times and they demand serious people.  And I'm hoping for the sake of our country that Sarah Palin's fifteen minutes of fame are just about up.

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
bevhale
Oct. 3rd, 2008 10:03 pm (UTC)
amen. the woman irritates me and scares me as well.
davidbcoe
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:32 pm (UTC)
Thank God for Tina Fey and SNL. Have you seen the ANL skit lampooning the debate? Classic.
kmarkhoover
Oct. 3rd, 2008 11:48 pm (UTC)
They go for "teh Dumb" because they believe it connects with the "low-information" voter. (To put it nicely.) And guess what? They're right. "Teh Dumb" works. Well, almost always.

Americans are Pavlovian to a fault. They tend to vote for someone they think will make them feel good. They're not all that interested in intelligence and reason and the capacity for self-reflection in a leader. And since there's more of them than us it's why we get the government we do.

Historically, this backfires when the economy is hammering the average guy. I believe that's why Clinton won and Obama has a chance. But often the down-home cornpone "drink a beer with the guy" BS the Republicans spew out wins. Gotta give them credit. They know how to give the electorate what they want using simplistic language and the voters respond. Even if it means voting against their best interests.

I hope it's different this time, but I wouldn't put money on it. I live by two rules: Never bet on the Cubs and never vote on the Democrats. Both organizations have the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That's why they're losers.
kmarkhoover
Oct. 3rd, 2008 11:49 pm (UTC)
correction
Of course, I meant "never BET on the Democrats." I vote for them all the time. Which says a LOT about me and my willingness to repeatedly go down with the ship..... ;)
davidbcoe
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:33 pm (UTC)
Re: correction
Yeah, I figured that much. I vote for losing candidates all the time.
davidbcoe
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:33 pm (UTC)
Well, you were certainly right about the Cubbies this year. Let's hope the Dems find a way to win in spite of themselves.
hedwig_snowy
Oct. 4th, 2008 03:22 pm (UTC)
Isn't it only in politics that we do this though? We don't go in for a doctor's visit and have them tell us we need surgery and then look around at all the surgeons and pick the janitor to operate on us because he 'seems' like a nice guy that we'd like to have a beer with.

We tend to look for the best, the brightest, the most athletic (sports) in just about everything else but having a President that actually understood the problems facing the country and the ability to deal with them? Nah...as long as he doesn't make me feel stooopid...

Still, I sometimes wonder about politicians. Take Congress. Most of them are lawyers. While there are many reasons for people to enter public service, I do have to wonder if some weren't so bad at their 'real' job that they took up politics. Some might think that the best and the brightest in the legal profession just naturally move into politics, but ten minutes of watching C-Span will dissuade them from that fantasy.
davidbcoe
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:37 pm (UTC)
It's like those Charles Schwabb (or whoever) commercials that show people operating on themselves or some such and then the punchline is "Relying on your own investment expertise doesn't make much sense either..." You're right -- we look for intelligence and excellence everywhere else, but we trust idiots to run the country. Bizarre.
markwise
Oct. 6th, 2008 11:22 am (UTC)
I for one agree with you on this. Although I would extend it to both parties and not just a symptom of the Republicans.

People not only are drawn to others like themselves, they also are very busy people. Most voters in America are busy people and don't have the wish, want, or desire to really research canidates, so they follow slogans and party lines.

This leads to the dumbing down of canidates. Smart canidates means research and fact check. That's too much time investment.

What is more effective in a campaign, "Here's my energy policy." or "A chicken in every pot."?
davidbcoe
Oct. 6th, 2008 03:11 pm (UTC)
Well put (you know, for an old person -- so how old are you now, anyway?). Wouldn't it be great to have an Australian style campaign? Six weeks -- eight tops -- of true public debate on the issues. And then we vote. I am so ready for this thing to be over....
markwise
Oct. 6th, 2008 03:33 pm (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Also, there is a need to make all Primaries to take place on the same day rather than across 6-8 months. We can have a national eclection on the same day but not Primaries?
davidbcoe
Oct. 6th, 2008 03:44 pm (UTC)
I agree 100%! Okay, how about four weeks for primary campaigning and eight weeks for the national campaign? That would be 12 weeks total -- about 1/10 the length of the campaign we have now. I could live with that.

Actually it would be interesting to ponder what this campaign would look like if we'd had that kind of campaign this year. I would think it would tend to help frontrunners, so we might be in the final days of a Clinton-Giuliani campaign. What do you think?
markwise
Oct. 6th, 2008 06:31 pm (UTC)
Giuliani? *shudder* It would be Clinton in a landslide.
davidbcoe
Oct. 6th, 2008 06:57 pm (UTC)
Maybe. It would have been a hideously dirty campaign. On both sides.
tiarella
Oct. 8th, 2008 12:35 pm (UTC)
Here's a link to the New Yorker article endorsing Obama. It's a very thoughtful analysis of Obama's strengths.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors
davidbcoe
Oct. 8th, 2008 07:29 pm (UTC)
Thanks very much for the link. I get the New Yorker, so will read it there, but others should check it out here.
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Australia, Ghost Gum
davidbcoe
David B. Coe
Website

Latest Month

September 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner