politics: a good question

[winterbadger]

from Newsweek

"Do we want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks? Therein lies an enormous difference, one that could decide the presidential election and, if McCain and Palin were to win, shape the governance of the nation."

The article goes on to talk about elitism.

"A key argument for Palin, in essence, is this: Washington and Wall Street are serving their own interests rather than those of the broad whole of the country, and the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo."

Is this an elitist point of view? Perhaps, though it seems only reasonable and patriotic to hold candidates for high office to high standards. Elitism in this sense is not about educational or class credentials, not about where you went to school or whether you use "summer" as a verb. It is, rather, about the pursuit of excellence no matter where you started out in life. Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were born to ordinary families, but they spent their lives doing extraordinary things, demonstrating an interest in, and a curiosity about, the world around them. This is much less evident in Palin's case."

Me, I'd like a president who is smart, experienced, adaptable, and listens to other people, can put himself or herself in others' shoes. There seems to be a dangerously simple-minded confusion between the idea that our elected officials represent us (act for us, since we can't have 300 million people voting on every decision of government) and the idea that elected officials should be representative of us (should have the same distribution of ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, and, by implication, intelligence and skill as the population). I DON'T want a government that is representative. I want the best and the brightest, and failing that I want at least people with broad experience and significant intelligence.

And, moreover, I want leaders who will listen to their advisors, even if those people tell them things they don't want to hear. Apart from Palin's disturbing religious tendencies and her inexperience, one of the things that bothers me a great deal about her is her seeming propensity to fire people who bring her bad news or tell her she can't or shouldn't do what she wants to do. That seems to be dangerous and small-minded.

Yes, I want a president with a bold, progressive vision and the eloquence to describe it stirringly. But I would be willing to settle for a president who is smart and can handle complex issues, and whose character I trust even if I disagree with her or his positions. McCain fails the trust test on a basic level, though I believe him to be a very smart man. Palin is neither smart nor trustworthy.

Comments

[dativesingular.livejournal.com]

the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo."

Thanks, I needed a laugh. :)