PDA

View Full Version : In Defense of Elitism


Rohirrim
09-28-2008, 08:04 PM
In Defense of Elitism
By Sam Harris | NEWSWEEK

Published Sep 20, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Sep 29, 2008

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth: "Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."

When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

Harris is a founder of The Reason Project and author of The New York Times best sellers "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."

baja
09-28-2008, 08:12 PM
http://www.hbo.com/billmaher


Click on Bill Maher - Overtime

TexanBob
09-28-2008, 08:21 PM
Should have been titled "In Defense Of Arrogance".

Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism.

And Obama's supporters don't act the same way? Gimme a break!

epicSocialism4tw
09-28-2008, 10:03 PM
Should have been titled "In Defense Of Arrogance".



And Obama's supporters don't act the same way? Gimme a break!

This is one of the silliest things I have seen posted here.

If this self-proclaimed elitist was as intellectually superior as he claims to be, then he would realize that his lot in life is inferior to those that stand above him with the resources to buy and sell he and his little narrow philosophy, and then he would find his own by his own means.

Instead, he becomes a "journalist" of sorts (a self-important bunch in their own right) so that he can attempt force his narrow little psychological Napoleon complex upon the culture of his age.

Cultural fascist.

baja
09-28-2008, 10:10 PM
This is one of the silliest things I have seen posted here.

If this self-proclaimed elitist was as intellectually superior as he claims to be, then he would realize that his lot in life is inferior to those that stand above him with the resources to buy and sell he and his little narrow philosphy, and then he would find his own by his own means.

Instead, he becomes a "journalist" of sorts (a self-important bunch in their own right) so that he can attempt force his narrow little psychological Napoleon complex upon the culture of his age.

Cultural fascist.

After a heavy snowfall the more rigid branches
of the pine break under the weight of the snow,
but the more supple willow branches bend,
thus allowing the snow to fall to the ground.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-28-2008, 10:21 PM
Should have been titled "In Defense Of Arrogance".


In your world, anyone who doesn't fit into the willfully ignorant, faith-based mold is automatically "arrogant" or "elitist."

enjolras
09-28-2008, 10:26 PM
He has a perfectly valid point.

Why would ANYONE want an 'ordinary' American to be president? It's a hard job, one that requires an extraordinary human being to do well. An ordinary American isn't equipped to do that job, they just aren't. Do you think Washington was an 'ordinary' American? Jackson? Lincoln? Roosevelt?

They where elites, every single one of them. They rose to prominence because they where smarter and more capable than everyone else. Anyone with two neurons to rub together recognizes that we shouldn't be looking for a president just like us,but one who really is smarter and more intellectually equipped than the average American to undertake such an incredibly difficult job.

If you think differently, then you are truly the greatest threat this country faces. Blatant anti-intellectuals who would sell their country out in the name of ignorance.

epicSocialism4tw
09-28-2008, 10:29 PM
In your world, anyone who doesn't fit into the willfully ignorant, faith-based mold is automatically "arrogant" or "elitist."

You know that's a mischaracterization. That poster is pretty bright.

I do know that its not beyond you to mischaracterize someone on this board for what you would think is political gain. The same distracting tactic that politicians employ without pause.

He's right about the article. It is arrogant, and he is right about the hypocrisy of it all.

epicSocialism4tw
09-28-2008, 10:31 PM
He has a perfectly valid point.

Why would ANYONE want an 'ordinary' American to be president? It's a hard job, one that requires an extraordinary human being to do well. An ordinary American isn't equipped to do that job, they just aren't. Do you think Washington was an 'ordinary' American? Jackson? Lincoln? Roosevelt?

They where elites, every single one of them. They rose to prominence because they where smarter and more capable than everyone else. Anyone with two neurons to rub together recognizes that we shouldn't be looking for a president just like us,but one who really is smarter and more intellectually equipped than the average American to undertake such an incredibly difficult job.

If you think differently, then you are truly the greatest threat this country faces. Blatant anti-intellectuals who would sell their country out in the name of ignorance.

You would be the ignorant one if you believe for a second that any of these people are average high-school-educated, 30k annual Americans.

baja
09-28-2008, 10:38 PM
why does a 72 year old man with 150 million dollars want to be president anyway

kappys
09-28-2008, 10:42 PM
Should have been titled "In Defense Of Arrogance".



And Obama's supporters don't act the same way? Gimme a break!

I agree, despite my dislike for Palin, this article is terrible.

Some of the comparisons are so obviously flawed that I couldn't bother to read past them. I stopped after comparing being president to being a neurosurgeon and perfoming brain surgery on a child. That's not like comparing apples to oranges but more like comparing rutabegas to blackberries. Terrible analogy. By this author's logic the best choice for President would probably be Dick Cheney.

This is where liberals often lose "commoners" who understand instincively (or should I say obviously) that leadership is not a matter of tecnhical expertise, like say brain surgery, but rather a combination of a number of more nebulous factors that are hard to quantitate in a meaningful fashion. Also foreign affairs and even domestic policy is not as complicated, in a technical sense, as would be physics or organic chemistry.

epicSocialism4tw
09-28-2008, 10:54 PM
I agree, despite my dislike for Palin, this article is terrible.

Some of the comparisons are so obviously flawed that I couldn't bother to read past them. I stopped after comparing being president to being a neurosurgeon and perfoming brain surgery on a child. That's not like comparing apples to oranges but more like comparing rutabegas to blackberries. Terrible analogy. By this author's logic the best choice for President would probably be Dick Cheney.

This is where liberals often lose "commoners" who understand instincively (or should I say obviously) that leadership is not a matter of tecnhical expertise, like say brain surgery, but rather a combination of a number of more nebulous factors that are hard to quantitate in a meaningful fashion. Also foreign affairs and even domestic policy is not as complicated, in a technical sense, as would be physics or organic chemistry.


Good post.

One of the most effective traits a modern president can have is the ability to be a great actor. Considering the effect that it has on public confidence (see Reagan, Clinton, etc). Acting is important in sales. In effect, the President's major job is to use interpersonal skills to organize programs and people to get projects done. The same traits that are important in business.

chickennob2
09-28-2008, 11:11 PM
Is it arrogant to think that well educated people who have spent their lives involved in national government are better suited to make national government decisions than the average person?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-28-2008, 11:14 PM
Is it arrogant to think that well educated people who have spent their lives involved in national government are better suited to make national government decisions than the average person?

Ding ding ding!

Glad somebody gets it. :thumbsup:

chickennob2
09-28-2008, 11:23 PM
Good post.

One of the most effective traits a modern president can have is the ability to be a great actor. Considering the effect that it has on public confidence (see Reagan, Clinton, etc). Acting is important in sales. In effect, the President's major job is to use interpersonal skills to organize programs and people to get projects done. The same traits that are important in business.

Bull**** on both parts. The face of the President that the average American sees, sure, may be an actor. But to think that some esoteric "leadership qualities" are the only qualification for the most important job in the world is absurd. Interpersonal skills don't mean **** when you make that decision to send our troops to war. Do you think Clinton was a great president because he could gladhand people into doing things for him? **** no. This mindset is absolutely ludicrous.

The fact that we have had an incompetent president for the last 8 years in no way means that we should look to continue this trend. Sure you can do it, but that doesn't make it a good idea. It is true that America can exist with a President who is little more than a figurehead for a network of people expertly trained in different areas. We can exist with a president who has no intimate knowledge of the economy or foreign affairs. But that doesn't make it a good idea. I would much rather vote for a man who knows what he is doing than elect a figurehead, where the actual power will reside in unelected bureaucrats.

The President of the United States is the most important, and most demanding job in the world. To pretend differently is absurd. To select someone to fill this position who is not the most qualified person possible is absurd.

John McCain, I feel, is qualified to be the President of the United States. Bush was not. Palin certainly is not.

epicSocialism4tw
09-28-2008, 11:35 PM
[QUOTE]Bull**** on both parts. The face of the President that the average American sees, sure, may be an actor. But to think that some esoteric "leadership qualities" are the only qualification for the most important job in the world is absurd.

Talk about missing the mark...

You might not want to post a response if you dont understand the post.

Interpersonal skills don't mean **** when you make that decision to send our troops to war. Do you think Clinton was a great president because he could gladhand people into doing things for him? **** no. This mindset is absolutely ludicrous.

Wow. Spoken like a person without a clue.


The fact that we have had an incompetent president for the last 8 years in no way means that we should look to continue this trend. Sure you can do it, but that doesn't make it a good idea. It is true that America can exist with a President who is little more than a figurehead for a network of people expertly trained in different areas. We can exist with a president who has no intimate knowledge of the economy or foreign affairs. But that doesn't make it a good idea. I would much rather vote for a man who knows what he is doing than elect a figurehead, where the actual power will reside in unelected bureaucrats.

Goodness. Have you ever taken a class in US Govt? Elementary stuff even?

You shouldnt be so demonstrative about things you know very little about.

chickennob2
09-28-2008, 11:48 PM
[QUOTE=chickennob2;2106468]

Talk about missing the mark...

You might not want to post a response if you dont understand the post.



Wow. Spoken like a person without a clue.




Goodness. Have you ever taken a class in US Govt? Elementary stuff even?

You shouldnt be so demonstrative about things you know very little about.

Enlighten me

epicSocialism4tw
09-28-2008, 11:51 PM
Enlighten me

Maybe tomorrow. I'm done at the lab.

Goodnight.

Bronco X
09-29-2008, 12:38 AM
Some of the comparisons are so obviously flawed that I couldn't bother to read past them. I stopped after comparing being president to being a neurosurgeon and perfoming brain surgery on a child. That's not like comparing apples to oranges but more like comparing rutabegas to blackberries. Terrible analogy. By this author's logic the best choice for President would probably be Dick Cheney.


I don't think the analogy is that bad, considering the subject matter. In this case, Sarah Palin. The responsibility of being Vice President or President of the United States is no less daunting than having the life of a child needing brain surgery in your hands. The consequences of mishandling it no less dire.

You've seen how they've been handling Palin. They are being selective with the interviews she gives, only three the first month. You've seen the interviews. Think of them as job interviews.

To say that Palin is not qualified is not to say people need to undergo the kind of technical training needed to perform brain surgery. There are plenty of people from a variety of different fields and walks of life qualified to get elected to public office and eventually be President or Vice President. Sarah Palin is not one of them.

Rohirrim
09-29-2008, 02:05 AM
I notice that nobody has touched on the subject of Palin's religious extremism. IMO, any society in which anti-intellectualism is something you hold up with pride is a doomed society. There was a time, in Jefferson's day for instance, when great merit was placed on intelligence and knowledge. In fact, Jefferson preached the benefits of a merit based society where the cream rose to the top. Now we make fun of a Harvard education. It's a joke. They don't make fun of it in India and China. I'll tell you that. So, America, celebrate your ignorance as it steers you into servitude.

kappys
09-29-2008, 06:07 AM
No one is going to argue that we should elect the town idiot or some other dullard to be President. To be certain the President should be someone who has proven himself/herself to be a good leader and should be chosen from the most talented group of people available.

Again - Dick Cheney is probably the most "qualified" person in all of Washington. He has extensive experience as VP(some would say running the country) and a huge amount of past experience in the old Reagan/Bush I administrations. Do you want him to be President? Do you think he would make a good President?

Experience is a surrogate marker for someone we hope has good judgement - but is by no menas necessary for said judgement to be President. Ultimately issues of state and foreign policy are fundamentally different from things like the hard sciences. They do not require the rigorous study that quantam physics does

baja
09-29-2008, 06:20 AM
I notice that nobody has touched on the subject of Palin's religious extremism. IMO, any society in which anti-intellectualism is something you hold up with pride is a doomed society. There was a time, in Jefferson's day for instance, when great merit was placed on intelligence and knowledge. In fact, Jefferson preached the benefits of a merit based society where the cream rose to the top. Now we make fun of a Harvard education. It's a joke. They don't make fun of it in India and China. I'll tell you that. So, America, celebrate your ignorance as it steers you into servitude.


At least we are seeing some outrage finally. This Palin nomination seems to have been the preverbal straw. Do anyone see the latest episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill calls her a bimbo

W*GS
09-29-2008, 06:21 AM
Is it arrogant to think that well educated people who have spent their lives involved in national government are better suited to make national government decisions than the average person?

That was Hillary's claim, and it wasn't successful, even with Democrats.

baja
09-29-2008, 06:25 AM
That was Hillary's claim, and it wasn't successful, even with Democrats.

We should pick our leaders from the ranks of weathermen

alkemical
09-29-2008, 07:23 AM
I get called an elitist by several people. Fact is, i demand you live to up to my standards and if you aren't good enough - that's not my problem.

TexanBob
09-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Good post.

One of the most effective traits a modern president can have is the ability to be a great actor. Considering the effect that it has on public confidence (see Reagan, Clinton, etc). Acting is important in sales. In effect, the President's major job is to use interpersonal skills to organize programs and people to get projects done. The same traits that are important in business.

Someone once tried to disparage Reagan by saying he was "just an actor" and Reagan replied by listing through all the meetings and ceremonies he had to attend to that day. "Frankly, I don't see how you can do this job and not be an actor," he concluded.

Can you imagine how many times a president has to be somewhere he'd really rather not be, shaking hands he'd rather not shake and pretending that he is loving every minute of it when he'd prefer to be reading a book or holding a fishing rod with a cold brew? When you are President of the United States, your every minute is managed by handlers and schedulers.

TexanBob
09-29-2008, 02:35 PM
Do anyone see the latest episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill calls her a bimbo

Like we really want to take the word of a failed comedian on this. The same Maher who called the 9-11 terrorists "brave" because they flew airplanes of innocents into tall buildings full of innocents?

ScottXray
09-29-2008, 03:22 PM
The problem with having an ACTOR as president is the person who is the director. You didn't get to vote for that person. And a president who is only playing the part, but a great actor gets the credit, and later the blame. You don't get to decide what the actor does when a crisis starts. You vote for the actor because he is supposed to have the skills and intelligence to make an informed decision, then choose. Reagan was a great political actor, and he was a medium poor president, although some still cling to the good old days and claim he was great.

Of course all politicians have advisors and all politicians have to act somewhat. Its part of the job, and those bad at one side of the job or the other are eventually found out. Those REALLY bad usually don't rise to the highest levels. Palin may be a good politician, but its clear she is not ready for the responsibilities of the office she is nominated for at this time. She hasn't done the homework and is really pretty cluless about international affairs, and she has a lot of negatives that are now being brought to light. If she loses this election I would assume that she will return to Alaska, and be voted out of office after her term, or possibly after two.
If somehow McCain wins this election and she ascends to the presidency it will be a disaster with results worse than Bush has been.
Unless of course you prefer a talking barbie doll as president.

kappys
09-29-2008, 04:43 PM
Of course all politicians have advisors and all politicians have to act somewhat. Its part of the job, and those bad at one side of the job or the other are eventually found out. Those REALLY bad usually don't rise to the highest levels. Palin may be a good politician, but its clear she is not ready for the responsibilities of the office she is nominated for at this time. She hasn't done the homework and is really pretty cluless about international affairs, and she has a lot of negatives that are now being brought to light. If she loses this election I would assume that she will return to Alaska, and be voted out of office after her term, or possibly after two.
If somehow McCain wins this election and she ascends to the presidency it will be a disaster with results worse than Bush has been.
Unless of course you prefer a talking barbie doll as president.

I certainly can't defend Palin. The pick was terrible and she clearly knows nothing.

I am objecting to the idea that only a select few men with appropriate "experience" what John Adams referredto as the rival adventurers of the ruling class are the only ones fit to lead a country.

Foreign affairs and domestic policy is not physics or brain surgery - no matter how much you would like it to be. In this mere forum we have ordinary people routinely posting articles from leading academic journals, deciphering and debating them. If I were to start posting l;eading articles from the Journal of Neurosurgery or Journal of theoretical physics no one would even no where to start regarding commentary.

ScottXray
09-29-2008, 04:58 PM
I certainly can't defend Palin. The pick was terrible and she clearly knows nothing.

I am objecting to the idea that only a select few men with appropriate "experience" what John Adams referredto as the rival adventurers of the ruling class are the only ones fit to lead a country.

Foreign affairs and domestic policy is not physics or brain surgery - no matter how much you would like it to be. In this mere forum we have ordinary people routinely posting articles from leading academic journals, deciphering and debating them. If I were to start posting l;eading articles from the Journal of Neurosurgery or Journal of theoretical physics no one would even no where to start regarding commentary.

No doubt some here could discuss things intelligently. However the select few that run for the highest office generally are expected to have an adequate amount of life experience and intelligence to fulfill the job requirements. This is one of McCains main attacks on Obama. A lack of experience, as if that somehow justifies his position.

I would much rather elect someone with the intelligence to perform in the job on his/her own, rather than hire an attractive puppet with an invisible controller loading up the foreign policy disk and pulling the string attached to the back. This is why Palin has failed in her interviews. She is empty.

Actually I think we agree.

kappys
09-29-2008, 05:04 PM
No doubt some here could discuss things intelligently. However the select few that run for the highest office generally are expected to have an adequate amount of life experience and intelligence to fulfill the job requirements. This is one of McCains main attacks on Obama. A lack of experience, as if that somehow justifies his position.

I would much rather elect someone with the intelligence to perform in the job on his/her own, rather than hire an attractive puppet with an invisible controller loading up the foreign policy disk and pulling the string attached to the back. This is why Palin has failed in her interviews. She is empty.

Actually I think we agree.

We probably do agree. You still have to be intelligent to understand these issues.

I was merely trying to raise the point that no special training is needed to garner a full understanding of politics. I object to any who think some elite schooling or apprenticeship must be completed before one can undertake a political career.

epicSocialism4tw
09-29-2008, 05:10 PM
Someone once tried to disparage Reagan by saying he was "just an actor" and Reagan replied by listing through all the meetings and ceremonies he had to attend to that day. "Frankly, I don't see how you can do this job and not be an actor," he concluded.

Can you imagine how many times a president has to be somewhere he'd really rather not be, shaking hands he'd rather not shake and pretending that he is loving every minute of it when he'd prefer to be reading a book or holding a fishing rod with a cold brew? When you are President of the United States, your every minute is managed by handlers and schedulers.


Anyone who has lived off of large commissions in the sales world knows the value of acting. Not necessarily being dishonest, but in putting up a facade and making the network gel under pressure to get the pieces in place to close the big deal. In the case of grand-scale deals like you see in national politics, it takes a person who is a figurehead (to those who dont understand the intricacies) on one plane and a hard-working network-fusing bold spirit on the other plane.

Bronco X
09-29-2008, 05:31 PM
I am objecting to the idea that only a select few men with appropriate "experience" what John Adams referredto as the rival adventurers of the ruling class are the only ones fit to lead a country.


I think people only argue that when it's politically expedient. For example some of the same people that once and still defend Palin's aptitude to be Vice President or President argue that Obama is not ready to be President. And people may use it against Palin too broadly, but as long as it's directed at Palin I don't see what the problem is.

IMO Palin reflects more poorly on McCain than her. Palin came from Alaska which has it's own isolated set of issues to go along with it's isolated geography. She understood the issues, opportunistically pounced on unpopular corrupt politicians by running against them, and got elected Governor with a reputation as a reformer to boot. Then McCain drops the Vice Presidential nomination in her lap. He obviously didn't even vet her. As the presidential nominee of a major political party, he used the task of selecting a running mate as a cheap political stunt.

kappys
09-29-2008, 05:33 PM
I think people only argue that when it's politically expedient. For example some of the same people that once and still defend Palin's aptitude to be Vice President or President argue that Obama is not ready to be President. And people may use it against Palin too broadly, but as long as it's directed at Palin I don't see what the problem is.

IMO Palin reflects more poorly on McCain than her. Palin came from Alaska which has it's own isolated set of issues to go along with it's isolated geography. She understood the issues, opportunistically pounced on unpopular corrupt politicians by running against them, and got elected Governor with a reputation as a reformer to boot. Then McCain drops the Vice Presidential nomination in her lap. He obviously didn't even vet her. As the presidential nominee of a major political party, he used the task of selecting a running mate as a cheap political stunt.

Maybe one of the best posts on this thread :thumbs:

epicSocialism4tw
09-29-2008, 05:36 PM
I think people only argue that when it's politically expedient. For example some of the same people that once and still defend Palin's aptitude to be Vice President or President argue that Obama is not ready to be President. And people may use it against Palin too broadly, but as long as it's directed at Palin I don't see what the problem is.

IMO Palin reflects more poorly on McCain than her. Palin came from Alaska which has it's own isolated set of issues to go along with it's isolated geography. She understood the issues, opportunistically pounced on unpopular corrupt politicians by running against them, and got elected Governor with a reputation as a reformer to boot. Then McCain drops the Vice Presidential nomination in her lap. He obviously didn't even vet her. As the presidential nominee of a major political party, he used the task of selecting a running mate as a cheap political stunt.

Here's the rub: Palin is a VP candidate. Obama is a presidential candidate.

HUGE difference.

Palin actually has the type of experience you look for in a federal seat. People make the jump from Governorship to the House or Senate all the time (or the inverse). She has also shown to be a creative problem solver. The thing I like best about her is her rugged individualism. She's a real leader. perfect for the VP seat in congress.

TexanBob
09-29-2008, 05:40 PM
I look at it this way. Obama wants to be Tony Romo. For now, Sarah Palin just wants to be Brooks Bollinger. Obama's lack of experience is 10 times more important than Palin's because he actually wants to run the country. Palin just wants to be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. We could survive 4-8 years of an incompetent Vice President better than 4-8 years of an incompetent President.

Anyone who can't see the difference there is intentionally avoiding the obvious. Obama is no more experienced than Palin but HE wants to be handed the keys to the White House and SHE wants to be Miss Congeniality.

kappys
09-29-2008, 06:06 PM
I look at it this way. Obama wants to be Tony Romo. For now, Sarah Palin just wants to be Brooks Bollinger. Obama's lack of experience is 10 times more important than Palin's because he actually wants to run the country. Palin just wants to be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. We could survive 4-8 years of an incompetent Vice President better than 4-8 years of an incompetent President.

Anyone who can't see the difference there is intentionally avoiding the obvious. Obama is no more experienced than Palin but HE wants to be handed the keys to the White House and SHE wants to be Miss Congeniality.

I think of Mcain more as Brodie Croyle - there's some talent there but a decent chance that he'll get injured and thrown out of there.

Now Palin is like Tyler Thigpen - nobody knows what he has to offer and he could be good - but far more likely he sucks.

Biden is like Huard - not the guy you really want at the helm of your team but at least he gives you a shot at winning.

Bronco X
09-29-2008, 06:17 PM
Anyone who can't see the difference there is intentionally avoiding the obvious. Obama is no more experienced than Palin but HE wants to be handed the keys to the White House and SHE wants to be Miss Congeniality.

That's hypocritical BS. And I'm sure you know it. Obama can give due consideration to the issues and make reasoned decisions. Palin can't. Enough said. Anyone defending Palin's experience after she has demonstrated she cannot even coherently communicate about relevant issues has themselves tied by chain to a sinking ship of logic. I'm sorry, but she wouldn't have even made it in Alaska if she couldn't talk about the issues there.

The Vice Presidential nomination is not a joke. Especially when the presidential nominee is seventy-two years old.

epicSocialism4tw
09-29-2008, 07:41 PM
That's hypocritical BS. And I'm sure you know it. Obama can give due consideration to the issues and make reasoned decisions. Palin can't. Enough said. Anyone defending Palin's experience after she has demonstrated she cannot even coherently communicate about relevant issues has themselves tied by chain to a sinking ship of logic. I'm sorry, but she wouldn't have even made it in Alaska if she couldn't talk about the issues there.

The Vice Presidential nomination is not a joke. Especially when the presidential nominee is seventy-two years old.

Dont be dramatic. If you are placing your vote based on the above logic, you have been drawn into the game and fooled.

epicSocialism4tw
09-29-2008, 07:45 PM
I think of Mcain more as Brodie Croyle - there's some talent there but a decent chance that he'll get injured and thrown out of there.

Now Palin is like Tyler Thigpen - nobody knows what he has to offer and he could be good - but far more likely he sucks.

Biden is like Huard - not the guy you really want at the helm of your team but at least he gives you a shot at winning.

In the spirit of these examples, lets say that Obama is that QB from Harvard that started for the Bengals on Sunday: Ryan Fitzpatrick. Went to a good school, excelled enough in local politics to make it to the next level, but has never executed a play with the big boys.

He gets his shot (Obama's running a big money campaign) and loses the game (by even allowing a close vote).

gyldenlove
09-29-2008, 08:19 PM
Well, Bill Clinton is smarter than George W Bush, they both served two terms and who do you think did better?

So it is arrogant to claim that the states are better off with a smart VP than a smalltown hick with few if any qualifications who probably couldn't even get hired to a lowlevel management position?

The presidents major job is running the country, and seeing how bad it can go when you have an incompetent dimwit running the show for 8 years should be a clear and easy to understand wakeup call to everybody that you need people who can actually understand issues at a deeper level in order to work through problems.

Did anyone ever try to replace every reference Palin makes to god or the almighty with Allah and compare her to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Extremism is an ugly thing, no matter if it is islamic, christian, jewish, druid or vegetable.

Rohirrim
09-29-2008, 08:27 PM
Palin is Ryan Leaf. ;D

gyldenlove
09-30-2008, 09:33 AM
Palin is Matt Cassell.

As long as there is any other option you can be sure they don't want her to start, but she adds value to the team by her non-playing skills. In the case of Cassell it is reading defenses and giving Brady input, in Palins case it is adding a face who is not 200 years old and an ability to connect with people who never made a phone call that started with cranking up the phone to get to the operator.

Lets be honest, the Patriots are better off is Cassell never has to start and everybody is better off is Palin never has to actually do any VPing. As long as they just stand by and do their part everything is fine.