The young'uns among our readers may not remember, but a few years back there was this show called The West Wing, in which a president who was not only a liberal intellectual -- a Nobel Prize-winning economist at that -- but also extraordinarily eloquent, principled, and politically savvy, went about pursuing liberal goals and meeting crises with aplomb. It was a liberal fantasy, since President Bartlett was everything we wanted a president to be. And in one series of episodes, Bartlett actually went after his opponent for re-election for being a simpleton who advocated simplistic solutions to complex problems. Here's a sample:
OK, we all know that isn't how things really go. But I have to object to this article in Politico by Ben Smith, which goes after Democrats for criticizing their opponents for being simpletons who advocate simplistic solutions to complex problems. The main piece of evidence seems to be that liberals will be attending the Stewart/Colbert rally, and "in doing so, they've also brought to light some of the party’s most self-destructive tendencies, the elitism and condescension that Bill Clinton sought to purge in the 1990s."
But is that really the problem Democrats are facing this year? I think 9.6 percent unemployment might be something of a more important factor. And apart from Sarah Palin's tweets, I haven't seen a lot of Republican candidates charging their opponents with being elitists. Nor are Democratic candidates acting condescending. While there are those among us who make fun of the occasional Republican for this or that, that isn't the argument Democrats -- the ones buying the ads and running for office -- are making. For instance, Harry Reid's entire case against Sharron Angle is that she's "extreme," not that she's a dolt. She happens to also be a dolt, but you won't catch him saying that.
And we shouldn't take it for granted that if a comedian or a blogger makes fun of a candidate that the public will decide en masse that liberals are elitists and therefore vote against them. That's what comedians and (some) bloggers do: they make fun. Ridicule is a powerful weapon (it's one that Republicans have usually wielded more vigorously than Democrats). The fact that Sarah Palin -- who is, let's not forget, the most unpopular politician in America -- bitches about something not only doesn't mean it's true, it also doesn't mean her complaint is having a political impact.
Finally, we shouldn't give in to the idea that it's off-limits to point out when a candidate for office is an idiot. We shouldn't just vote for the smartest person (Richard Nixon, for instance, was extremely smart), but it also isn't too much to ask that the people who are asking us to let them write our laws have some understanding of how government works, or what the most pressing policy questions are about, or what kinds of things the Constitution does and doesn't say. The fact of the matter is that a lot of this year's Tea Party candidates know almost nothing about government, don't seem to care, and show no evidence of being particularly clever in any other way either. No one of either party believes that someone like Sharron Angle or Rand Paul or Ken Buck or Christine O'Donnell is going to come to Washington and turn into a skillful legislator capable of assembling coalitions and crafting complex legislation. They just aren't. And those of us who aren't running for office shouldn't be afraid to say it, whether it's the most politically advantageous thing or not.
-- Paul Waldman
