Since When is Intelligence a Bad Thing?

There was a great deal of talk in the recent VP debate about 'main street' and 'outsiders' coming to Washington, and the argument that this would a good thing as compared to the so called 'elites' who are currently ruining our nation from DC. The argument is a hypocritical and faulty at best. Those who run 'Washington' (the term has simply become shorthand for the federal government and all its branches and agencies) are both east coast elites with ivy league educations and representatives from every walk of life from every corner of this great nation.  Anne Applebaum argued yesterday that contrary to the political rhetoric of the day, Washington 'outsiders' are just as susceptible, if not more, to corruption and mismanagement of their posts. 

The District is not Manhattan. In Washington, the significance of this "elite" pales in comparison with that of the "hockey moms," "Joe Six-Pack" and "Main Streeters" who have dominated the political conversation in the nation's capital for as long as I can remember... I am thinking here of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska (a resident of Girdwood), now on trial on charges of corruption, and Texas Rep. Tom DeLay(born in Laredo), who resigned in disgrace. For the sake of bipartisanship, I'll mention Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (originally of Lake Providence), recently indicted on charges of corruption. But if more small-town Republican names come to mind, that's because small-town Republicans have figured among the most powerful and most prominent Washington politicians for much of the past decade. 

The bottom line is that the 'elites' of DC have, in recent history, been less corrupt in the back rooms of Washington, but they are by no means immune to the temptation.  But where then, have they gotten such a bad reputation? When did this become the standard by which our leaders should be judged? Individuals with ivy league educations have turned out to be some of our best and some of our worst presidents. 

The qualities on which we should be casting votes should be proposed policies, leadership traits, decision making skills- not where the candidates come from or what type of education they may have. Military experience and time at Harvard are both incredibly valuable experiences for anyone, and can impact how one would define themselves as a president. 

The debates were telling in that they were an avenue through which the candidates could articulate their policies, demonstrate how their experiences have uniquely shaped them, and help voters understand the philosophies guiding their thinking and policy making. 

Gov. Palin failed largely on this in last weeks VP debate. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic. Whether you're from small town Alaska or an ivy league professor, that argument isn't logical and leads to cherry-picking priorities based on politics not sound philosophy. 

By contrast, in last night's debate Sen. Obama demonstrated a coherent philosophy on the role of government (health care as a right, not a responsibility) and was able to articulate his priorities should he be elected (While Sen. McCain implied it was un-American to set priorities because we should be doing everything... talk about out of touch). People sometimes criticize Obama for being professorial. But tonight, I thought his calm, coherent explanations of policy were a distinct advantage. There’s nothing wrong with a man who speaks in full sentences. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed: “If you can’t say it, you can’t whistle it, either.” David Ignatius