In the Vice Presidential debate, Sarah Palin presented herself as a “maverick,” primarily because she is ignorant to the ways of Washington. Her canned responses, her constant evasions, her inability to discuss the complex problems we face with anything but vague platitudes provide evidence of this ignorance – and this, Palin might say with a cutesy grin, is a compliment.
Palin framed herself as a rebel last night, as a revolutionary who is qualified to change the culture of Washington because she doesn’t understand it. And beyond last night, since we have been introduced to Palin, she has consistently demonstrated an astounding lack of knowledge about world affairs and proper English syntax. But again, Palin would likely disagree with none of this.
And in fact, Palin probably wouldn’t disagree that Senator Biden had more substance to his answers than she. She basically said as much, providing an explicit rationale for avoiding debate in favor of sticking like Gorilla Glue to her talking points: "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people." And by many accounts, especially by conservative pundits such as Pat Buchanan, she “won” the debate through her “folksy” answers, which were less answers to questions and more pre-recorded advertisements, low on factual content and high on emotional appeal.Palin and the Republicans in general are trying to lead a rebellion against Washington – they’re trying their best to convince us that erudition should not be a prerequisite for high office. And that Bush won twice – a man who was not elected for his mind, but for the fact that many could “drink a beer with him” – tells me Republicans might be winning in this revolt against intellect. Palin is the next logical step towards a “Jane Six-Pack” with her manicured hand perched on the nuclear football.
In “Republicans, Stop Calling Obama Elitist: Because the real reason you don't like him is that he's smarter than you,” Bill Maher, in his usually insightful wit, hits directly on the widespread anti-intellectualism Palin incites and exploits. He argues: “Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us.” Maher points out the dangerous fallacy of the “regular ruler,” who may not understand the complexities of the Constitution, Global Warming, or world affairs, but does understand what it’s like to be “one of the people.”Palin’s Politics of Populous Ignoramus is nothing new, despite what conservative bloggers might claim. In fact, Palin’s approach is as old as Washington itself, the debate between the intellectuals and “Joe Six Pack” encoded in the DNA of our country. In any high school history book, you’d find that as the Constitution was being written, the framers debated if the government should be run by the intellectual, educated elite or the farmers – “Joe Six Pack.” The educated elite called the uneducated farmers “rabble,” while the farmers distrusted these “elites,” no doubt saying the word with a sarcastic smile, as Palin might.
Conservative bloggers are working tirelessly to make this two-hundred plus year old argument work, claiming that “normality” is a pre-requiste for elite offices. In “Palin Has Everything that Counts,” American Thinker writer Kyle-Anne Shiver calls Palin the American version of Prime Minister of England Margaret Thatcher. The author quotes Thatcher: "Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country." The implication, of course, is that Palin’s experience as a mom prepares her to be VP. What the author doesn’t mention? Thatcher was no “hockey mom,” but was Oxford-educated, holding degrees in Chemistry and Law, and was a career-politician, starting in Parliament at 34 years old – and not reaching the highest office for many years later. (http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html)
In other words, Thatcher had both intellect – and experience - besides claims to motherhood. And if Palin were running against her, you better believe they’d pull out the “elitist” card.
In the same article, the author cites a previous comment (though unreferenced) by Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, in which Noonan claims: “In a president, character is everything. A president doesn't have to be brilliant... He doesn't have to be clever; you can hire clever... You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in policy wonks. But you can't buy courage and decency, you can't rent a strong moral sense.” In other words, nothing but values matter. Interestingly, as the author notes and as we all remember from her open mic gaffe, Noonan recently sung a different tune about Palin, saying “the most qualified? No! I think they [the Republicans] went for this—excuse me—political bullshit about narratives…” Palin was not picked because she was qualified, not because she was brilliant, not because she was clever, nor practical – and a president, according to the Populous Ignoramus logic, doesn’t need to be any of these things. Just likable, and have a “good story.”For the last eight years, we’ve seen what has happened when we let “beer buddies” run our country. Make no mistake – Palin is politics as usual. I don’t need to drink beer with my president, nor my VP: I want him or her to be an elite thinker, an elite speaker, someone who has vast knowledge of a number of topics, and an intimate understanding of how the world works, and is able to articulate that knowledge in a way that’s clear, articulate and motivating.
I want a leader, and not a talking-point reader.
And hopefully, we can convince the American public of this, also.
2
2
1
