×
It's common to claim that there's a certain genius to the GOP's preference for unready candidates who don't exhibit the easy flash of intelligence or steady grounding of knowledge because, hey, the American people aren't Harvard Law professors either, and they prefer voting for one of their own. I never quite know how to evaluate that model of the electorate. It may be true for some, but folks don't dismiss their surgeons because they're all uppity about their knowledge of valves and they don't dismiss their stockbrokers because they seem to know too much about derivatives (whoops, bad example). Can they really want a president whose qualification is not knowing much about matters of life and death, growth and impoverishment, health and welfare?Maybe. Amadeo has written a post from this perspective that I recommend folks read. Don't go leave nasty comments or send biting e-mails. Just read it. It's a perspective that I don't pretend to understand, but it's definitely present in the electorate. In particular, I'm interested in this piece:
Sarah represents us, you and me, and we can identify with her. So if she is not in their league, then she is in our league, and we, the electorate, are also involved in making the choices not just them. And guess what, we have the numbers.We get ill at ease talking before large crowds and in front of millions of people on TV, and because of this and other unnerving pressures we sometimes have difficulties getting our ideas across. But we know that a little practice and more exposure will make us better. Our ideas are just as good as the rest of humanity, maybe even better in some respects. Look at the current crises. These were caused and made worse by members of their league, graduates of elite schools, smooth talkers but many action-challenged, loquacious and skillful, heaping-full of oratorical skills and argumentation nuances. But where did these gifted elite get us? Both in government and in our economic institutions?[...]That is why many of us identify also with the current president who the media has judged from the get-go as a bumbling oaf, unable to put many good sentences together, and quite uncomfortable emoting before crowds without prepared notes. But this precisely is why we gave our nod because we understand that he is just like any of us. And maybe this is better for us to have somebody who is not too comfortable talking before crowds, because maybe it will be easy for us to find out if he is speaking the truth or what he truly believes in. Maybe for us Obama is too smooth and too skillful that it becomes quite easy for him to spout lies or half-truths, or hide his personal beliefs, or whatever, without showing any discernible changes in his physical demeanor.In part, it's politics as a form of self-affirmation. But there's an interesting populism lurking within the sentiment: "Look at the current crises. These were caused and made worse by members of their league, graduates of elite schools, smooth talkers...where did these gifted elite get us?" Of course, the guy goes on to laud Bush, and Bush got us into most of these crises, so there's an element here of simple partisan self-persuasion. If McCain had chosen Bobby Jindal, many of the folks lauding Palin's populist background and unsteady grasp of policy would be gushing over the Rhodes Scholar reformer and his easy fluency in national affairs. And as Palin has proven herself ever more unready, her approval ratings have fallen through the floor. But still, there's something interesting in here. We don't trust those who are too different. We don't trust the conspicuously rich. We don't trust the obviously foreign. And by the same token, we don't trust the overly talented. Or, at the least, if we're looking for a reason not to trust someone, being too talented works out just fine.
