Elitism

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. But when it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, 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.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Sarah 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 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 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, Islamic radicalism 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.

Why are people so excited about "folksy people" in government? We're talking about the presidency of the United States here! Do you really want someone who is an "average joe six-pack" to be in that position? We've had that for the last eight years, and look where it's gotten us: budget deficits, increased spending, economic downturn, and horrible foreign policy (even countries that were once staunch allies now look at us with distrust and disdain).

The President of the United States of America should not be an average person. I want him (or her) to be intellectually superior. I want him to have excellent judgment, and be incredibly insightful. He should be a strong leader; one who inspires those around him to new levels of greatness; inspires them to do better things than even they ever thought they could. The president should not be someone who is quick to anger, and who changes his political leanings to suit the mood of his party (see: John McCain). The president should not be someone who is petty and vindictive, and who will use his power to settle personal scores (see: Sarah Palin).

As always, John Stewart says it best. Fast forward to time index 7:10 on the following video.

Does Obama Hang Out with Terrorists?

This claim was sufficiently debunked during the primary elections, which should have been the end of it. But the McCain campaign has recently trotted it out again in a desperate attempt to smear Sen. Obama and call his judgment into question. In particular, Sarah Palin has mentioned it at nearly every public appearance she has made in the past week.

Here are the facts. The man in question, Bill Ayers, was a member of a radical organization in the 1960's (when Obama was a young child) that protested the Vietnam war. Today he is a respected professor of education at the University of Illinois. To refer to him in the present tense as a terrorist is highly deceiving. In any case, Obama's actual ties to the man are tenuous at best:

• They lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago.
• They once served on the board of a charitable organization in the late 90's.
• Obama once attended a democratic fundraiser at Ayers' home -- 12 years ago -- long after Ayers had turned his life around and become an educator.

That's it. They are not friends or "pals"; barely acquaintances.

What's even more interesting about the Sarah Palin claim is that she said she was simply quoting an article in the New York Times. But that article clearly debunks the "terrorist pal" theory:

"The two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

So either Sarah Palin is purposely lying, or she simply can't read and process information as well as the average sixth grader. You decide which is worse.

UPDATE 10/12: We've added a few more sources below, all debunking the claims being made by McCain/Palin. What's more disturbing is that their ads continue to run on TV, radio, and the Internet, despite it having now been shown conclusively that it is full of lies.

Additional Sources:

• FactCheck.org: "He Lied" About Bill Ayers?
• CNN: Is Obama Palling Around with Terrorists?
• Newsweek: Assessing Ayers: Innuendo vs. Information

Is Palin Really Qualified?

Let's try a simple logic exercise.

Imagine you are on the Board of Directors for a billion-dollar, multi-national company. It is your job to select the next CEO for your company. You have been given two candidates from which to choose. Candidate #1 is the president of his current company, which he founded. Candidate #2 never even reached VP level; in fact, his current title is merely Regional Director.

If you were to base your choice solely on this information, it might appear that Candidate # 1 is more qualified. Surely you want a president over a regional director, right? Maybe. But what if you were given the following additional information:

• Candidate # 1 is the president of a small company with 5 employees. It is a moderately successful printing and publishing company located in a rural town. They do about $250,000 in annual sales.
• Candidate # 2 is the director of regional operations for a large company whose primary businesses include manufacturing, retail sales, and business services. He oversees the efforts of more than 2500 employees at 15 sites in his region, with a combined annual budget of slightly less than $300 million.

Now who do you think is more qualified to take over your company? Based on the expanded information, one is led to the unmistakable conclusion that you want Candidate # 2.

So the next time someone tells you that an Alaskan governor is better prepared to be president than an Illinois senator, make sure they have considered these statistics:

Alaska:

• Population: about 700,000
• Gross state product: about $40 billion.
• Primary Industries: Oil. (More than 80% of the state's revenues are derived from petroleum extraction. The gross state product is also a somewhat misleading number as a result.)

Illinois:

• Population: about 13,000,000
• Gross state product: about $600 billion.
• Primary Industries: Chemical manufacturing, food manufacturing, machinery, fabricated metal products, plastics and rubber products, transportation equipment, computer and electronic products, financial services, publishing, petroleum, and coal.

In our example, Candidate # 1 is not qualified to take over a billion dollar company. Just as Sarah Palin is not qualified to take over the United States of America.